CAR_Public/170207.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Tuesday, February 7, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 27



                            Headlines

1-800 FLOWERS: Certification of Employee Class Sought in "Rodkey"
AES DRILLING: "Cole" Suit Seeks Certification of Engineers Class
AGILE THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Lichtenthal" Securities Suit
AIR CANADA: Quebec Court Authorizes Ticket Glitch Class Action
ARISE VIRTUAL: Bid to Certify Class Denied Without Prejudice

ARS NATIONAL: Class Certification Sought in "McGee" Suit
BENORE LOGISTIC: "Perkins" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
BT GROUP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
CANADA: Merchant Law Group Pursues Sixties Scoop Class Action
COLUMBIA COUNTY, AR: Court Conditionally Certifies Jailors Class

COLONIAL NURSING: "Jones" Lawsuit Alleges Violations of FLSA
COVO TRATTORIA: Faces "Padilla" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
DAVITA INC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
DELAWARE: "Noble" Lawsuit Dismissed
DONALD TRUMP: Broad Suit Challenges Immigration Order

DUKE ENERGY: Tells Coal Ash Pit Neighbors to Waive Claims
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Bid to Certify Madden NFL Nationwide Class Nixed
FACEBOOK INC: Judge Refuses to Dismiss TCPA Violation Suit
FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: "Magee" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
GAP INC: Hit with TCPA Suit Over Autodialed Calls

GIGAMON INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
GIGAMON INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
GKNY1 INC: Faces "Martinez" Suit Seeking to Recoup Overtime Pay
HOMEADVISOR INC: Court Rejects Settlement of "Lengel" FCRA Suit
HONDA: Hit With TCPA Class Action Over Airbag Safety Calls

ILLUMINA INC: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Suit
INTEGRATED TECH: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Certification of 4 Classes
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Bid to Amend Securities Suit Granted
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Averts Product Liability Class Action
JOHNSON CONTROLS: No Lone Pine Case Management Order, Judge Says

LENDING CLUB: NY Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration
LTG LLC: Faces "Miranda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MAG ENTERPRISES: Doesn't Properly Pay Dancers, "Morin" Suit Says
MALLINCKRODT PLC: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
MANITOBA: Flood Evacuees' Suit Certified

MANPOWER INC: Settlement in "Mata" Suit Gets Initial Approval
MARK OBENSTINE: Class & Subclasses Certified in "Estakhrian"
MIDCOAST ENERGY: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Suit
MILSTEAD & ASSOCIATES: Judge Bumb Certified Settlement Class
MRO CORPORATION: Judge Seals Discovery Documents in "Wilson" Suit

MYLAN INC: Faces Class Action Over Clomipramine Price-Fixing
MYLAN INC: NECA-IBEW Sues Over Generic Clomipramine-Price Fixing
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Former Cheerleaders File Wage Class Action
NEA DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Driver's OT, "Johnson" Suit Claims
NEAL TRUCKING: Poisson Seeks Settlement Approval

NEUSTAR INC: Faces "Parshall" Securities Suit in Delaware
NORTHWEST COLLECTORS: Ceragioli Class Certification Bid Withdrawn
OCWEN LOAN: Judge Approves $600K Deal to Settle Software Error
OPHTHOTECH CORP: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
OREGON: 10 Districts Opt Out of Timber Management Class Action

ORGANIGRAM: Could Face Suit Over Use of Unapproved Pesticides
PGA INC: "Schilling" Suit Seeks Certification of Opt-out Class
PGA INC: Asks Court to Decertify Class in "Schilling" Suit
PIXARBIO CORP: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Suit
PROJECT INVESTORS: Accord with Account Owners Has Initial Okay

Q.E.D. ENVIRONMENTAL: Asks Court to Deny Certification of Class
QUALCOMM INC: Patent Policy Reason for Antitrust Target
QUALCOMM INC: Sued Over Alleged Baseband Processor Monopoly
RESPOND POWER: Third Circuit Revives False Add Class Action
RIDDELL: Named Defendant in Concussion Class Action

ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Faces Securities Class Action
ROYAL PIZZA: Faces "Ixcoy" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws
SA GEAR: Must Defend Against "Williamson" Class Suit
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Handley" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA
SOHAB INC: Faces "Padron" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SOUTHERN COMPANY: Monroe County Fund Files Securities Lawsuit
SOUTHERN COMPANY: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Suit
STINGRAY PRESSURE: Faces "Lackie" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TIME WARNER: Manigo et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
TRUMP NATIONAL: Judge Awards $5.7MM Judgment in Golf Club Case

TWO JINNS: Bid for Initial Settlement Approval Under Submission
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Arbitration in EATS Courier Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Drivers' Class Action in California
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Launch Class Action in Ontario
UNITED STATES: Faces 40+ Lawsuits Over Trump Immigration Order

UNITED STATES: Settlement in "Greenwood" Suit Has Initial Okay
UNITED STATES: Northwest Immigrants Rights Project Files Lawsuit
US METALS: Carteret Residents File Class Action Over Contaminants
VASCULAR SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Teleflex Deal
VISTA OUTDOOR: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Suit

VOLKSWAGEN: Resists Granting Settlement to EU Car Owners
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Reaches Settlement with FTC in Emissions Case
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Second Class Action in UK Over Emissions
WAL-MART STORES: "Ridgeway" Plaintiffs Get $5+ MM in Restitution
WALT DISNEY: Settles Animators' Anti-Poaching Class Action

WELLS FARGO: "Layog" Labor Lawsuit Transferred to N.J. Court
WIRTZ REALTY: "Casarez" Suit Seeks Certification of Class

* Ogletree Deakins Attorneys Review Gorsuch Arbitration Opinions
* Seyfarth Shaw Attorney Analyzes Class Certification Rulings
* Value of Wage-and-Hour Class Action Settlements Up in 2016


                            *********


1-800 FLOWERS: Certification of Employee Class Sought in "Rodkey"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Pamela Rodkey and Cherie Cummings, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated employees
nationwide, and on behalf of the Ohio and Oregon Classes, the
Plaintiffs, v. 1-800 Flowers Service Support Center, Inc., Harry
and David, LLC, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-00311-TMR (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs move the Court,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), for entry of an
order conditionally certifying and authorizing notice to the
following group of employees:

   "all nonexempt employees who were employed by Defendants and
   paid overtime and incentive pay, commissions and/or other
   bonuses, within the past three years preceding the Complaint
   filing date".

The Plaintiffs further move the Court to:

   1. allow collective members 60 days to return their Plaintiff
      consent forms to Plaintiffs' counsel;

   2. approve the form of Plaintiffs' proposed notice, Plaintiff
      consent form, and reminder notice;

   3. authorize Plaintiffs' counsel to mail and email the notice
      at the beginning of the 60-day notice period;

   4. authorize Plaintiffs' counsel to mail and email a reminder
      notice at the 30th day of the notice period;

   5. order Defendants to post the Court-approved notice on
      Defendants' intranet or employees' dashboard;

   6. order Defendants to produce a list of all nonexempt
      employees who were employed by Defendants and paid overtime
      and incentive pay, commissions and/or other bonuses, within
      the past three years preceding the Complaint filing date,
      including their name, job title, email address, mailing
      address, and dates of employment; and

   7. order Defendants to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with the
      last known telephone number, date of birth, and last four
      digits of the employee's Social Security number, if
      available, within three business days of Plaintiffs'
      request, if any of the sent notice and consent forms are
      undeliverable because of an incorrect mailing address.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wXfqNLQY

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256 3200
          Facsimile: (612) 215 6870
          E-mail: srey@nka.com

               - and -

          Alan Leiman, Esq.
          Drew G. Johnson, Esq.
          LEIMAN & JOHNSON, LLC
          44 West Broadway, Suite 326
          Eugene, OR 97440
          Telephone: (541) 345 2376
          Facsimile: (541) 345 2377
          E-mail: alan@leimanlaw.com
                  drew@leimanlaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce H. Meizlish, Esq.
          Deborah R. Grayson, Esq.
          MEIZLISH & GRAYSON, INC.
          830 Main Street, Suite 999
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 345 4700
          Facsimile: (513) 345 4703
          E-mail: brucelaw@fuse.net
                  drgrayson@fuse.net


AES DRILLING: "Cole" Suit Seeks Certification of Engineers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned LARRY COLE and JEFFREY STONER,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. AES DRILLING FLUIDS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
4:16-cv-02030 (S.D. Tex.), Cole and Stoner move the Court for a
conditional certification of:

   "all current and former Drilling Fluid Engineers/Mud Engineers
   working as employees or independent contractors for AES
   Drilling Fluids, LLC during the past three 3 years".

Cole and Stoner previously worked for AES as Drilling Fluid
Engineers/Mud Engineers. Drilling Fluid Engineers/Mud Engineers
working for AES are paid a salary plus a day rate for each day
worked in the field. Drilling Fluid Engineers/Mud Engineers work
at well sites where they reside on the days they are working.
Drilling Fluid Engineers/Mud Engineers are entitled to overtime
pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Cole and
Stoner say AES's pay scheme denied Drilling Fluid Engineers/Mud
Engineers the overtime pay required by the FLSA.

According to the complaint, the parties agree that all of AES's
Drilling Fluid Engineers/Mud Engineers are subject to the same pay
provisions, and the same defenses with respect to their overtime
claims.

Additionally, Cole and Stoner seek an order from the Court
adopting the following schedule:

   1. 10 Days from order approving notice to potential class
      members.

      AES to provide to Plaintiffs' counsel in an Excel
      Spreadsheet the following information regarding all
      Drilling Fluid Engineers/Mud Engineers who worked for AES
      (either as an employee or as an independent contractor)
      from July 8, 2013 to present: Last Name, First Name, Last
      Known Address, City, State, Zip Code, Last Known E-Mail
      Address, Last Known Telephone Number, Beginning Date of
      Employment, and Ending Date of Employment (if any).

   2. Days from order approving notice to potential class
      members.

      Plaintiffs' Counsel shall send a copy of the Court approved
      Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class Members by
      First Class U.S. Mail and by email.

   3. 60 Days from date notice is mailed to potential class
      members

      The Putative Class Members shall have 60 days to return
      their signed Consent forms to Plaintiffs' counsel for
      filing with the Court.

   4. 30 Days from Date Notice is Mailed to Potential Class
      Members.

      Plaintiffs' Counsel is authorized to mail a second
      identical copy of the notice/consent form to the putative
      class members reminding them of the deadline or the
      submission of the consent forms

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dw07ORIq

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James A. Jones, Esq.
          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 877 8788
          Facsimile: 713 877 8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  jjones@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON,
          BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, L.L.P.
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751 0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751 0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com


AGILE THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Lichtenthal" Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA LICHTENTHAL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AGILE THERAPEUTICS, INC., ALFRED
ALTOMARI, and ELIZABETH GARNER, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00405
(D.N.J., January 20, 2017), alleges that Defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, specifically, that its Twirla
contraceptive patch would unlikely get approval from the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration. The act allegedly violated the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act.

AGILE THERAPEUTICS, INC. develops women's healthcare products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Phone: (973) 623-3000
     Fax: (973) 623-0858
     E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com


AIR CANADA: Quebec Court Authorizes Ticket Glitch Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a British Columbia law firm says
the Superior Court of Quebec has authorized a national class
action lawsuit to begin against Air Canada over a glitch in ticket
prices that occurred in August 2015.

The airline's website had offered a package of 10 flights within
Western Canada for a total cost of $800 before taxes.

Two Calgary men quickly snapped up the promotion and received
confirmation numbers and receipts.

But when they tried to book a trip, they couldn't find their
purchases on their Air Canada accounts.

When they called the airline to inquire, they were told the
package deal was supposed to be priced at $8,000.

Air Canada later issued a statement saying a "computer loading
error" resulted in a temporary mispricing that offered the
10-flight package at $800 instead of the correct price of $8,000.

The airline said it had apologized to affected travellers and
would provide a refund and honour any bookings made before the
error was caught.

Air Canada said it was not able to comment on the class action
certification as the matter is before the courts.

Burnaby, B.C.-based Evolink Law Group says the class action seeks
compensatory damages and-or punitive damages from Air Canada.


ARISE VIRTUAL: Bid to Certify Class Denied Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sara L. Ellis entered an order in the lawsuit styled
Barry Carter, the Plaintiff, v. Arise Virtual Solutions, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06262 (N.D. Ill.), denying a motion to
certify class and motion to compel without prejudice.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on February 2,
2017, another status hearing is set on April 18, 2017 at 9:30 AM.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jj1xEdry


ARS NATIONAL: Class Certification Sought in "McGee" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MICHAEL MCGEE, on behalf of plaintiff and
a class, the Plaintiff, v. ARS NATIONAL SERVICES, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00045-TLS-JEM (N.D. Ind.), Mr. McGee asks the
Court to enter an order determining that the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act action may proceed as a class action.

The class is defined as:

   "all (a) individuals in one of the applicable jurisdictions
   (b) to whom a letter was sent on behalf of ARS National
   Services, Inc., to collect a debt, (c) which debt was an auto
   retail installment contract or lease debt on which the last
   payment or activity had occurred more than four years prior to
   the letter, (d) which letter was sent on or after a date one
   year prior to the filing of this action and on or before a
   date 21 days after the filing of this action. The applicable
   jurisdictions are the District of Columbia and the 40 states
   other than Louisiana, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi,
   Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, and
   Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class.

ARS have been attempting to collect from plaintiff an alleged debt
consisting of an alleged deficiency on a motorcycle retail
installment sales contract incurred for personal, family or
household purposes and not for business purposes. On December 7,
2016, ARS sent plaintiff the form letter offering a settlement of
the debt. The Plaintiff had defaulted on the contract no later
than 2011, as a result of becoming disabled. The motorcycle was
repossessed and sold prior to February 1, 2012. No payments were
made after that date. The debt went into default more than 4 years
prior to December 7, 2016.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hlSPPqtY

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER
          & GOODWIN, L.L.C.
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


BENORE LOGISTIC: "Perkins" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled STEPHANIE PERKINS, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BENORE LOGISTIC
SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-13717-AJT-DRG (E.D.
Mich.), Plaintiffs move the Court for an order allowing the case
to proceed as a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action
on behalf of the following similarly-situated Benore Logistic
employees:

   "Transportation Coordinators employed by Benore Logistic at
   any point since October 20, 2013 who were not paid overtime
   wages for hours they worked more than 40 in a workweek".

The Plaintiffs also move for an order

   1. authorizing Plaintiffs to issue the notice of opportunity
      to join this overtime lawsuit against Benore Logistic along
      with the Consent to Sue form to the FLSA Collective Members
      by mail and e-mail and issue a reminder postcard to those
      collective members that have not responded within 30 days;

   2. requiring Benore Logistic to provide Plaintiffs with the
      Collective Members names, the last known addresses,
      employee identification numbers, and email addresses in
      electronic manipulable format; and

   3. requiring Benore Logistic to provide Plaintiffs with
      telephone numbers, dates of birth, and partial social
      security numbers of the Collective Members whose Notices
      are returned without a forwarding address.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bZPoNIQT

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
          GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC
          9 Paradies Lane
          New Paltz, NY 12561
          Telephone: (845) 255 9370
          E-mail: msweeney@getmansweeney.com


BT GROUP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on Feb. 1
disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of
purchasers of BT Group plc ("BT Group" or the "Company") (NYSE:BT)
securities during the period between May 10, 2013 and January 23,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York and is captioned Hollister v. BT Group plc, et al., No. 17-
cv-00777.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 27, 2017.  If you wish to discuss this action or
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or
Mario Alba Jr. of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.  If you are a member of this
class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/btgroup/. Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.

The complaint charges BT Group and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
BT Group provides telecommunications services to its customers
worldwide.  The Company is headquartered in London, England.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
material adverse information regarding BT Group's business and
prospects, including: (i) that the Company's Italian business,
which is a part of BT Group's Global Services division, was
overstating earnings over a number of years; (ii) that the Company
was engaging in improper accounting practices, which included a
complex set of improper sales, purchase, factoring and leasing
transactions; (iii) that BT Group's internal controls were so
materially inadequate that its reported results were not reliable;
and (iv) that due to the foregoing, defendants were forced to take
a write down of approximately GBP530 million and lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about BT Group's
then-current business and future financial prospects.

On October 27, 2016, BT Group issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the fiscal second quarter, the period
ending September 30, 2016.  Moreover, the Company announced that
BT Group would have to take a write down of approximately GBP145
million due to "certain historical accounting errors" at its BT
Italia division.

On January 24, 2017, the Company issued a press release announcing
an update of its investigation into BT's Italian business and its
revised outlook.  According to the press release, the Company
stated that it now expected to take a write down of approximately
GBP530 million -- almost four times the original amount the
Company estimated a few months prior.  In reaction to this, and
other related announcements, the price of BT Group American
Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") fell 21%, to close at $19.38 per ADR,
on extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
BT Group securities during the Class Period (the "Class").  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller is a law firm advising U.S. and international
institutional investors in securities litigation and portfolio
monitoring.  With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has
obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in
history and was ranked first in both total amount recovered for
investors and number of securities class action recoveries in
ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report for the last two years.


CANADA: Merchant Law Group Pursues Sixties Scoop Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Merchant, Q.C. stated: "[Wednes]day's announcement by
Minister Carolyn Bennett (announcing the establishment of formal
negotiations between the Government and Sixties Scoop survivors)
is a significant first step in addressing the legacy of the
Sixties Scoop Aboriginal Adoption program, which was a devastating
program that has visited long-term pain and suffering upon many
Indigenous families.  The struggles and hardship which many 60s
Scoop survivors are still dealing with in their daily lives, make
evident the profound impact with this forced adoption program had
on the Indigenous Canadians who were cruelly taken away as young
children and improperly placed for adoption against the will of
their parents.  Merchant Law Group has been pursuing Sixties Scoop
litigation on behalf of adoption survivors for the past 8 years
and we welcome this announcement aimed at bringing closure for
survivors of this forced adoption program."

"Merchant Law Group is pursuing Sixties Scoop class action
litigation on behalf of survivors across Canada and is prosecuting
Sixties Scoop lawsuits before the Courts in Nova Scotia, Quebec,
Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and the Federal Court of
Canada."

"Adoption survivors have contacted our law firm not just from all
over North America but even Europe.  Thousands of indigenous
children taken away from their homes and culture found themselves
adopted out mainly in Canada but also to the United States, and in
some instances found themselves in Europe or elsewhere."

Any Sixties Scoop Survivors interested in more information
concerning the class action litigation regarding the government's
"Adopt Indian Metis program" which saw First Nations, M‚tis and
other aboriginal children placed in forced adoption may provide
their contact information at http://www.merchantlaw.com/class-
actions/current-class-actions/indian-metis-scoop-class-action

Merchant Law Group LLP operates ten law offices across Canada and
is well known for pursuing class action lawsuits in Canada.


COLUMBIA COUNTY, AR: Court Conditionally Certifies Jailors Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Susan O. Hickey entered an order in the lawsuit entitled
MICHELLE RASBERRY, individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. COLUMBIA COUNTY, ARKANSAS, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01074-SOH (W.D. Ark.), granting in
part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification, approval and distribution of notice, and disclosure
of contact information as follows:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all salaried jailors (or similar positions) employed by
      Defendant Columbia County, Arkansas who worked in the State
      of Arkansas at the Columbia County Jail at any time after
      August 04, 2013";

   2. approving the proposed Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit
      form, once edited to comply with this Order. Plaintiff
      shall replace the statement "If the case is not settled
      between the parties, a trial will be held at the United
      States District Court. . . " with "If the case is not
      dismissed, settled, or decided on the merits prior to the
      trial date, a trial will be held at the United States
      District Court. . . "";

   3. approving the proposed Consent to Join Collective Action
      form and Plaintiff's request to include copies of the
      Complaint and Answer in the notice packet;

   4. approving the Second Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit
      postcard and approves sending the postcard to any class
      member who has not responded within 30 days of the mailing
      of the written notice;

   5. approving the use of e-mail to provide notice to potential
      plaintiffs as well as the proposed language of the notice
      e-mail;

   6. approving the utilization of www.rightsignature.com as a
      means for opt-in plaintiffs to join the lawsuit;

   7. approving sending un-responsive potential class members a
      follow-up e-mail 30 days after the initial notice e-mail
      was sent;

   8. directing Defendant to produce the full name, date of
      birth, dates of employment, last known home address, and
      personal and business e-mail address of any individual who
      meets the class definition. The list must be produced in a
      usable electronic format but Defendant need not convert the
      list to Plaintiffs' preferred format. Defendant shall
      deliver this information to Plaintiff's counsel within 14
      days of the entry of this Order, with the understanding
      that Plaintiff's counsel is to treat this information as
      confidential and is not to disclose it to third parties.
      The Court will not require Defendant to provide Plaintiff
      with partial social security numbers of potential opt-in
      plaintiffs; and

   9. directing Plaintiff to have 90 days from the date Defendant
      delivers the requisite contact information in which to
      distribute the notice and consent documents and to file
      signed consent forms of opt-in plaintiffs with the Court.
      Furthermore, Plaintiff is directed to correct the dates in
      the various notice and consent documents to reflect the
      current year, 2017.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DoahMYK4


COLONIAL NURSING: "Jones" Lawsuit Alleges Violations of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned ALMA JONES VERSUS COLONIAL NURSING HOME, INC.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00090 (W.D. La., January 20, 2017), asserts,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, that
Colonial willfully violated the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by depriving Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees of their lawful wages and overtime pay at the proper
rate.  Plaintiff worked as a Certified Nursing Assistant for
Colonial.

Colonial Nursing Home Inc. is a business under the category
Convalescent Home With Continuous Nursing Care.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Somer G. Brown, Esq.
     COX, COX, FILO, CAMEL & WILSON, LLC
     723 Broad Street
     Lake Charles, LA 70601
     Phone: 337-436-6611
     Fax: 337-436-9541
     Email: somer.brown@coxcoxfilo.com


COVO TRATTORIA: Faces "Padilla" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID PADILLA, JOANNY GARCIA, JOSE LOPEZ TAVAREZ, RUBEN DARIO
SANCHEZ JIMENEZ, and VLADIMIR ESTRELLA POLANCO individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against
701 W. 135TH CAFE INC. (d/b/a COVO TRATTORIA), ANTONIO LOBRUTTO,
ARSENIO ROSAS AND LUCAS VALERIANI, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00437 (S.D.N.Y., January 20, 2017), was brought to recover alleged
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and for violations of the New York Labor Law, and
the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commission of Labor.

Plaintiffs worked as waiters, busboys and food runners.  Covo
Trattoria was an Italian restaurant owned by Antonio Lobrutto,
Arsenio Rosas and Lucas Valeriani.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200


DAVITA INC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on Feb. 1 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado against DaVita Inc.
("DaVita" or the "Company") (DVA) on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company
during the period between August 5, 2015 and October 21, 2016,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

DaVita provides kidney dialysis services for patients suffering
from chronic kidney failure or end-stage renal disease.  The
Company operates kidney dialysis centers and provides related lab
services in outpatient dialysis centers, and provides acute
inpatient dialysis services in approximately 900 hospitals and
related laboratory services in the United States.  DaVita made
contributions to a purported charitable foundation called the
American Kidney Fund ("AKF"), a group that provides financial
assistance toward patients' health insurance premiums.

The Complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company and its senior executives
purposefully steered patients into unnecessary insurance plans in
order to maximize profits; (2) the Company was using AKF as a
vehicle to facilitate these improper practices; (3) as a result,
DaVita's revenues and profits were illegally obtained; (4) in
turn, DaVita lacked effective internal controls over financial
reporting; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about DaVita's business, operations, and prospects were
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join the class action
at www.saxenawhite.com.

If you purchased DaVita stock between August 5, 2015 and
October 21, 2016, inclusive, you may contact Lester Hooker
(lhooker@saxenawhite.com) at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your
rights and interests.

If you purchased DaVita common stock during the Class Period of
August 5, 2015 and October 21, 2016, and wish to apply to be the
lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the Court by no later than April 3, 2017.  You may
contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Saxena White P.A., with offices located in White Plains, New York
and Boca Raton, Florida, concentrates its practice on prosecuting
securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf of
institutions and individuals.  Currently serving as lead counsel
in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm
has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured
investors and is active in major litigation pending in federal and
state courts throughout the United States.


DELAWARE: "Noble" Lawsuit Dismissed
-----------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS E. NOBLE, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE EDWARD R.
BECKER, et al. Defendants. THOMAS E. NOBLE, Petitioner, v. JOHN
SEBASTIAN, Respondent. THOMAS E. NOBLE, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF
DELAWARE and GOVERNOR JACK MARKELL, Defendants, Civ. Nos. 03-906-
SLR, 16-406-SLR, 16-407-SLR (D. Del.), District Judge Sue L.
Robinson denied the Plaintiff's petition for writ of mandamus.

The Plaintiff commenced a purported class action challenging
Delaware's criminal statutes concerning child pornography and the
State's policing and enforcement of those laws as a violation of
his and others' civil rights. The Court dismissed the complaint as
a clear violation of the filing injunction, and ordered the clerk
to close the case and return Noble's filing fee, hence, the
Petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus.

The Court concluded that the Plaintiff failed to support his
burden to demonstrate that the court engaged in an unlawful
exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or failed to exercise its
authority when it was its duty to do so. Therefore, the Court
ruled that the mandamus relief is not warranted.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum dated January 23, 2017 is
available at https://goo.gl/260yyp from Leagle.com.


DONALD TRUMP: Broad Suit Challenges Immigration Order
-----------------------------------------------------
Josh Gerstein at Politico reports a California attorney filed a
federal lawsuit on January 28 broadly challenging President Donald
Trump's new executive order limiting immigration from Muslim-
majority countries in order to combat terrorism.

The suit, filed on January 28 afternoon in U.S. District Court for
Northern California, argues that the order intrudes on Congress'
legislative authority and violates the Establishment Clause of the
Constitution by discriminating on the basis of religion.

"It's a legislative function, so that violates separation of power
and it does not meet any of the well-recognized exceptions, so
we're asking to enjoin it or repeal it," said Andrew Shalaby, an
attorney with East Bay Law in Albany, Calif., near Oakland.

The order Trump signed restricts citizen of seven majority-Muslim
countries from traveling to the U.S., implements new procedures
for green-card holders from those countries and suspends admission
of refugees to the U.S.

The suit does not name any specific plaintiffs, but was filed on
behalf of the American public generally and the people of
California. Shalaby said he believes the case can be pursued under
a California law allowing private individuals to sue on behalf of
the public, but it's not clear that will allow the suit to proceed
in federal court.

Shalaby said he's confident he can find individual plaintiffs to
add to the suit, if a judge rules that is necessary. "I don't
think we have a standing problem. If we do, we have a solution to
it," he said.

Shalaby said he filed the case because he considered it important
to go after the Trump order right away.

"A lot of people in my circles encouraged me to file it," he said.
"We wanted to act on it immediately."

A separate class-action federal lawsuit challenging Trump's order
was filed early On January 28 in New York on behalf of two Iraqi
men who had valid visas but were detained on arrival at JFK
Airport Friday. One of the men was released On January 28.

The New York case is focused on the impact of the executive order
on immigrants who have arrived in the U.S. and are in detention or
face possible expulsion in connection with Trump's order. The
class action suit, brought in Brooklyn, has the backing of several
major immigrant rights organizations, including the International
Refugee Assistance Project, the National Immigration Law Center,
the American Civil Liberties Union and a legal clinic at Yale Law
School. A total of 18 attorneys were listed on legal papers filed
in the case, along with seven law-student interns.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has also announced plans
to file another lawsuit against Trump's order.

The cases all face uphill battles in court because most foreigners
outside the U.S. have few rights under U.S. law. Cases involving
impacts that the Trump order may have on foreign nationals who are
U.S. permanent residents (also known as green card holders) could
get more traction because they're usually considered to have more
legal rights. U.S. citizens may also have success in challenging
situations where their foreign spouses or family members appear to
be barred from entry into the country.

However, parts of the order seem to be worded to try to undercut
legal challenges. For example, part of the order effectively
giving priority to Christians in the refugee program refers to
cases where "the religion of the individual is a minority religion
in the individual's country of nationality." In addition, most of
the changes in the order are framed as temporary suspensions or
reviews -- the kinds of measures courts rarely overturn
particularly when the executive branch claims national security
concerns are at stake.


DUKE ENERGY: Tells Coal Ash Pit Neighbors to Waive Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Emery P. Dalesio, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
neighbors living near Duke Energy Corp's coal ash pits in North
Carolina are being told they have to give up the option of suing
over any future water problems if they want extra compensation
from the utility.

The country's largest electric company sent out letters to about
1,000 homeowners living near 13 of the company's coal-burning
power plants spread across North Carolina.  In them, the utility
said it will require the waiver to release the company from "any
claims for further compensation or recovery from Duke Energy"
related to alleged groundwater pollution or unsatisfactory
municipal water connections.

Duke Energy said its coal-ash pits are not to blame for any
contaminants detected in groundwater.  The company is offering a
$5,000 "goodwill" payment to neighbors "to support your transition
to a new water supply," the letters said.

The company was required by a state law passed last year to
install by October 2018 either new municipal water lines or a
household water treatment system to homes within a half mile of
coal ash sites.

Feb. 2 marked three years since liquefied coal ash containing
arsenic, lead, mercury and other heavy metals spilled from a Duke
Energy plant into the Dan River along the Virginia line.  The
spill threw a spotlight on coal ash, a waste byproduct left after
decades of burning coal for electricity.

Neighbors agreeing to forego future litigation are being offered
the $5,000 payment and one-time payments to cover about 25 years
of water bills resulting from new public water connections.  Some
lump-sum payments for water bills may be as high as $22,000, the
company has said.

Duke Energy said it also will make up for lost property values by
coal-ash neighbors who sell their home before October 2019 and get
less than fair market value.  That property compensation plan is
not contingent on neighbors signing the waiver, company spokesman
Jeff Brooks wrote in an email.

In 2015, state scientists warned more than 300 coal-ash neighbors
that their well water contained risky levels of a cancer-causing
chemical.  Top officials of Gov. Pat McCrory's administration last
year reversed that advisory, saying the previous warning used a
too-cautious health standard.

The financial offers are available to coal-ash neighbors whether
or not they are represented by attorneys, Brooks said.

Law firms based in Raleigh and Salisbury in the state, and in
Dallas, Texas, said they represent hundreds of coal-ash neighbors
who are concerned about the company's compensation.  No related
lawsuits have been filed, attorney Bryan Brice said on Feb. 2.

The waiver would include health concerns that may appear in the
future, raising questions since Duke Energy denies that its ash is
the cause of well-water contamination, he said.

"Why are you demanding a full release when you state that Duke did
not cause any groundwater or related problems?" Mr. Brice said.

The utility delivers electricity to about 7.4 million customers in
the Carolinas, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky and Florida.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Bid to Certify Madden NFL Nationwide Class Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Richard Seeborg entered order in the lawsuit titled
MICHAEL E. DAVIS, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. ELECTRONIC ARTS,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:10-cv-03328-RS (N.D. Cal.),
denying Plaintiff's motion for certification of a nationwide class
of:

   "former NFL players that includes individuals residing in all
   or nearly all of the 50 states, Washington, D.C., and other
   places around the world".

The Court said, "It might very well be that a former player living
in some state that does not recognize a right of publicity would
be entitled to sue in California, under California law, for a
misappropriation of his likeness in products sold in California.
Plaintiffs, however, are not seeking a nationwide class with
recovery that is limited to California sales of Madden NFL, so
that possibility does not assist them. Accordingly, EA has met its
burden to show that there is a true conflict between California
law and that of at least many of the other states that are
implicated by plaintiffs' claims, and that California's interest
is not superior to the interests of those states. As in
Lightbourne, a nationwide class may not be certified under
California's right of publicity statute on the facts of this case.
The ruling is without prejudice to plaintiffs seeking leave to
amend and/or presenting a renewed motion with a narrower class
and/or subclasses.  The parties shall appear for a further case
management conference on March 2, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., with a joint
case management conference statement to be filed one week in
advance".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mYtHEP9M


FACEBOOK INC: Judge Refuses to Dismiss TCPA Violation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Allison Grande at Law360 reports that a California federal judge
on January 27 refused to nix a putative class action accusing
Facebook of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
sending unsolicited text message reminders about friends'
birthdays, ruling that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged the use
of an autodialer and that the statute passed constitutional
muster.

In denying Facebook's motion to dismiss the suit for failure to
state a claim, U.S. District Judge Thelton E. Henderson rejected
the social media giant's arguments that plaintiff Colin R.
Brickman had failed to prove that the offending text message was
sent using an automated telephone dialing system that had the
capacity to store and dial numbers randomly or sequentially, as
required to assert a valid claim under the TCPA, and that the
statute violated the First Amendment.

Although Judge Henderson called the question of whether Brickman
had alleged enough to support a TCPA claim against Facebook a
close call, he concluded that, in viewing Brickman's allegations
in a light most favorable to him, the plaintiff had alleged more
than a conclusory allegation that Facebook used an ATDS to send
out text messages by detailing exactly how Facebook's software
determines who to text, how it gathers the contact information
needed to send out text, how it creates text messages and how it
sends them out, all without human intervention.

"While Facebook's birthday announcement texts do suggest direct
targeting of Brickman, based on the facts alleged, it is plausible
that Facebook could have used an ATDS to send out the targeted
messages," the judge ruled. "This is especially true in a
situation like this where Brickman alleged Facebook possessed the
particular information and technology needed to craft such
targeted messages (i.e., cell phone numbers, users' birthday,
friendship connections, etc.)."

The judge also rejected Facebook's argument that the TCPA claim
launched by Brickman in February should fail because it was
triggered by human intervention, namely Brickman's decision to
sign up for Facebook, link his cellphone number to his profile,
and connect with the friend who decided to publicly share the
birthday information that was shared with Brickman in the single
alert he received encouraging him to wish that friend a happy
birthday.

"The court finds that Brickman's and [his friend's] actions were
not the impetus for Facebook sending the birthday announcement
text," Judge Henderson ruled. "This is particularly true where
Brickman alleges he gave Facebook his cellphone number but that
his account settings gave Facebook 'unambiguous notice' that it
did not have consent to send him text messages."

When it came to the disputed issue of consent -- which Facebook
argues Brickman expressly provided and the plaintiff contends he
did not -- Judge Henderson ruled that he did not need to address
the issue in his ruling because for the purposes of a motion to
dismiss, "the court must accept all material allegations of fact
as true and construe the complaint in a light most favorable to
the non-moving party."

"Accordingly, while the issue may be disputed at a later time, the
court shall accept as true Brickman's allegations that he did not
provide consent to receive text messages from Facebook," the judge
ruled.

Moving to question of whether the TCPA is unconstitutional -- an
argument which drew the U.S. government into the dispute for the
purpose of defending the constitutionality of the statute -- Judge
Henderson concluded that the provisions exempting calls made for
emergency purposes and to collect a debt owed or guaranteed by the
government from the statute's restrictions withstood strict
scrutiny.

Facebook had argued that the TCPA could not survive strict
scrutiny because the challenged provisions were both
underinclusive and overinclusive, and there were less restrictive
means for achieving the government's compelling interest in
promoting residential privacy.

But Judge Henderson concluded that neither exemption allows for
the "unlimited proliferation" of any type of call, that Facebook
has provided no plausible alternatives that would be less
restrictive and at least as effective in protecting privacy as the
TCPA, and that the statute does not restrict individuals from
receiving any content they want to receive since they can remove
any prohibitions by providing express consent.

"If individuals want to receive speech from Facebook that
facilitates social connections, they are not prohibited from doing
so," Judge Henderson ruled.

Patrick J. Perotti of Dworken & Bernstein Co. LPA, who represents
Brickman, told Law360 that his side was pleased with the ruling,
and stressed the importance of the case in ensuring that one of
the nation's leading electronic communications providers is
playing by the rules.

"When one of the companies that is the heart and soul
of how people talk to each other through electronic
communciations begins to abuse these rules, that's exactly what
Congress was trying to protect in enacting statutes like the
TCPA," Perotti said. "We're shocked that Facebook is fighting this
rather than doing the right thing and changing its practices."

Perotti added that his side was looking forward to moving ahead
with the dispute, which will now turn to the issue of the
plaintiff learning from Facebook how many users have been impacted
by the allegedly unlawful texting practice, a universe of
individuals that Dworkin said he expects will number in the
hundreds of thousands or millions.

A representative for Facebook did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

Brickman is represented by Patrick J. Perotti --
pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- and Frank A. Bartela --
fbartela@dworkenlaw.com -- of Dworken & Bernstein Co. LPA, and
Kristen Law Sagafi -- ksagafi@tzlegal.com -- Martin D. Quinones --
mquinones@tzlegal.com -- and Hassan A. Zavareei --
hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- of Tycko & Zavareei LLP.

Facebook is represented by Andrew B. Clubok --
Andrew.Clubok@kirkland.com --, Susan E. Engel --
Susan.Engel@kirkland.com -- , Devin S. Anderson --
Devin.Anderson@kirkland.com -- and Elizabeth L. Deeley --
elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

The case is Colin R. Brickman v. Facebook Inc., case number 3:16-
cv-00751, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: "Magee" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Magee, Samantha Bailey and Robert Bloominger Jr.,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Francesca's Holdings Corp. and Francesca's
Collections, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00565-RBK-JS (D.N.J., January
27, 2017), seeks to recover current and former store managers'
unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate more than 600 specialty retail stores or
boutiques nationwide, offering apparel, jewelry, accessories and
gifts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Palitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (800) 616-4000
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

         - and -

      Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
              gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

         - and -

      Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
      Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
      David A. Roth, Esq.
      HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
      192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-1199
      Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
      E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
              Cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
              Droth@hgrlawyers.com


GAP INC: Hit with TCPA Suit Over Autodialed Calls
-------------------------------------------------
Shayna Posses at Law360 reports that a consumer hit Gap Inc. with
a proposed class action in New York federal court on January 26,
alleging that the retailer violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by continually autodialing his cellphone, even
after he explained that the company had the wrong number.

Roy Campbell's complaint alleges that the retailer starts
autodialing consumers when they fall behind on payments for their
Gap-brand credit cards, sometimes reaching numbers no longer held
by its customers but refusing to stop calling.

"Gap fails to heed these consumers' requests that it cease placing
calls to their cellular telephones," Campbell said. "Gap's
continued calls cause consumers great inconvenience and invasion
of privacy, in violation of the TCPA."

In the last four years, Gap started placing automated calls to
Campbell's cellphone from a number associated with Gap Inc. Credit
Services, he contends. When he answered the phone, he heard a
prerecorded message indicating that the call was from the retailer
regarding the collection of a debt, with no option to speak to a
human representative, the suit says.

If Campbell didn't answer, Gap left prerecorded messages on his
voicemail, saying that the call was intended for a person named
Charmaine Thomas, someone Campbell doesn't know, according to the
complaint.

Ultimately, the suit says, the consumer called Gap back and spoke
to a live representative, explaining that they had the wrong
number and asking to be put on the "do not call" list. Although
the representative said Gap would stop calling Campbell, that
wasn't the case, the complaint alleges.

The retailer continued to place automated calls to his phone, even
though Campbell doesn't owe Gap any money and never gave the
company his cellphone number nor permission to autodial it,
constituting willful violations of the TCPA, the complaint
alleges.

Not only was he annoyed, frustrated and inconvenienced, he also
had to pay for the calls, Campbell says.

He seeks to represent all people in the United States who received
autodialed, nonemergency calls from Gap within four years of the
complaint after informing the retailer that the call was to a
wrong number.

Campbell seeks statutory damages, as well as injunctive and
declaratory relief.

Gap joins a growing number of retailers defending TCPA actions in
recent years, including Lands' End, which was hit with a proposed
class action earlier this month over allegedly unsolicited fax
ads, and American Eagle, which agreed to pay $14.5 million in
December to resolve claims over text message blasts, according to
court filings.

Representatives for the parties didn't immediately return request
for comment on Friday.

Campbell is represented by Sergei Lemberg of Lemberg Law LLC.

Counsel information for Gap wasn't immediately available on
Friday.

The suit is Roy Campbell et al. v. Gap Inc., suit number 1:17-cv-
00081, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York.


GIGAMON INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gigamon Inc., Paul A. Hooper, Michael J.
Burns, and Rex S. Jackson, Case No. 5:17-cv-00434-EJD (N.D. Cal.,
January 27, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the complaint asserts that by failing to
disclose that Gigamon was experiencing reduced product bookings in
its North America West region, that several of the Company's
significant customers were deferring purchasing decisions into
2017, and that the Company failed to properly include these trends
in its financial guidance, the Defendants' statements about
Gigamon's business, operations, and prospects, including
statements about its revenue guidance, were false and misleading
and lacked a reasonable basis.

Gigamon Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Santa
Clara, California that develops solutions that deliver pervasive
and dynamic intelligent visibility and control of traffic across
networks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com
              lportnoy@glancylaw.com
              clinehan@glancylaw.com


GIGAMON INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announces that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting of
persons and entities that acquired Gigamon Inc. securities between
October 27, 2016 and January 17, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice, to serve
as lead plaintiff. Please contact Lesley Portnoy at 888-773-9224
or 310-201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this
matter.

On January 17, 2017, the Company issued a press release entitled
"Gigamon Announces Preliminary Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2016
Results." Therein, the Company disclosed preliminary fourth
quarter 2016 revenue of "$84.5 million to $85.0 million, compared
to the company's prior guidance of $91 million to $93 million."
The press release also quoted Defendant Paul Hooper as stating
"fourth quarter revenue was below our prior guidance" and that
"[f]ourth quarter revenue fell short primarily due to lower than
expected product bookings in our North America West region, as
several significant existing customer accounts deferred purchasing
decisions into 2017."

On this news, the price of Gigamon common stock fell $12.65 per
share, or 28.7%, to close at $31.40 per share on January 18, 2017,
thereby injuring investors.

The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that Gigamon was
experiencing reduced product bookings in its North America West
region; (2) that several of the Company's significant customers
were deferring purchasing decisions into 2017; (3) that the
Company failed to properly include these trends in its financial
guidance; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about Gigamon's business, operations, and prospects,
including statements about its revenue guidance, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.


GKNY1 INC: Faces "Martinez" Suit Seeking to Recoup Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
MANOLO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against GKNY1 INC. (d/b/a GLOBAL KITCHEN) and
KWONIK CHO, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00447-PKC (S.D.N.Y.,
January 20, 2017), seeks recovery of alleged unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York Labor Law, and "overtime wage order" and the "spread of
hours" order of the New York Commissioner of Labor.

Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker.  Global Kitchen is a
fast food restaurant owned by Kwonik Cho.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200


HOMEADVISOR INC: Court Rejects Settlement of "Lengel" FCRA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kathryn H. Vratil declined to grant preliminary approval to
the settlement agreement in the case captioned EMERALD LENGEL, on
behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
HOMEADVISOR, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-2198-KHV (D.
Kan.)

Emerald Lengel brought a putative class action on behalf of all
persons who applied for employment with HomeAdvisor, Inc., between
January 13, 2013 and June 10, 2015.  The plaintiffs claimed that
HomeAdvisor violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that HomeAdvisor failed to
provide job applicants a stand-alone disclosure stating that it
would obtain a consumer report (background check) for employment
purposes.  The plaintiffs also alleged that these violations were
willful, and thus triggered statutory penalties under 15 U.S.C.
section 1681n(a)(1)(A).

On November 18, 2015, the plaintiffs sought:

     (1) preliminary certification of the proposed settlement
         class;

     (2) preliminary settlement approval;

     (3) appointment of Lengel as representative of the
         settlement class;

     (4) appointment of Lengel's attorneys as class counsel; and

     (5) approval of the proposed class notice.

HomeAdvisor did not oppose the motion.

The settlement class includes approximately 1,650 persons.  Under
the settlement agreement, HomeAdvisor will establish a $190,000
settlement fund to compensate settlement class members and pay any
amounts which the Court approves for attorneys' fees, expenses and
a class representative service award.  The settlement agreement
provides that in addition to the $190,000 fund, HomeAdvisor will
pay all administrative costs of settlement, including the cost of
disseminating notice and distributing settlement payments.  In
exchange for this monetary payment, class members will release all
claims "arising out of or relating to the facts alleged in the
complaint including but not limited to any and all claims under
the FCRA, including specifically 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(2)(A),
and any parallel or similar state or common-law claims."

Judge Vratil preliminarily certified the following settlement
class: "All applicants for employment with HomeAdvisor about whom
HomeAdvisor procured a consumer report for employment purposes at
any time from January 13, 2013 through June 10, 2015, excluding
any individuals who timely file a valid written notice of intent
to opt out of the Settlement."

Judge Vratil also appointed Lengel as class representative for the
settlement class, and Kai H. Richter of Nichols Kaster, PLLP and
Michael F. Brady and Mark Kistler of Brady & Associates as class
counsel for the settlement class.

Judge Vratil, however, did not preliminarily approve the
settlement agreement as fair, reasonable and adequate.  The judge
found that although most of the other terms of the settlement
appear fair and reasonable, the settlement is unclear on one point
regarding the scope of the release and on two points related to
payment to class members.

Judge Vratil found that the broad release of claims relating to
the facts alleged in the complaint and not limited to claims under
the FCRA potentially covers a range of employment claims far
broader than the FCRA claims in the complaint.

Judge Vratil also noted two issues in regard to provisions for
payments to class members:

     -- The agreement provides that HomeAdvisor will mail
        each settlement class member a check for the pro-rata
        share of the net settlement fund.  Presumably HomeAdvisor
        will not mail checks to settlement class members for whom
        it has no good address, but the settlement agreement does
        not spell out what happens to those class members' share
        of the net settlement fund.

     -- The settlement agreement does not contain a
        provision for re-distributing to class members the funds
        from checks which are not cashed within 60 days.

A full-text copy of Judge Vratil's January 25, 2017 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/N4kcyN from Leagle.com.

Emerald Lengel, Plaintiff, represented by Kai H. Richter --
krichter@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice, Mark A.
Kistler -- mkistler@mbradylaw.com -- Brady & Associates Law Office
& Michael F. Brady -- brady@mbradylaw.com -- Brady & Associates
Law Office.

HomeAdvisor, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alexander C. Clayden
-- aclayden@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage, LLP, pro hac vice,
Mark A. Samsel -- msamsel@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage, LLP &
Stephen J. Horace -- shorace@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage,
LLP, pro hac vice.


HONDA: Hit With TCPA Class Action Over Airbag Safety Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Walter Olson at Overlawyered reports Honda called car owners to
warn about dangerous Takata airbags. Its reward was to get sued by
a class action lawyer over unsolicited calls under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).


ILLUMINA INC: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
Illumina, Inc. (NASDAQ: ILMN) from July 26, 2016, and October 10,
2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Illumina investors under the federal
securities laws.

According to the lawsuit, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations
and prospects, including overstating demand for its high
throughput sequencing instruments. Specifically, Defendants made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose: (1) that
the Company was experiencing a large decline in high throughput
sequencing instrument sales; (2) that the decline was negatively
impacting the Company's revenue; (3) that the Company lacked
visibility into trends that could have a substantial impact on the
Company's financial results; (4) that, as such, the Company's
revenue guidance was unreliable and overstated; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
Illumina's business, operations, and prospects, were false and
misleading and lacked a reasonable basis.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than February 14, 2017.  If you wish to discuss this
action, have any questions concerning this notice, or your rights
or interests, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com)
by email or by phone at 619-814-4471. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

                      About Johnson & Weaver, LLP:

Johnson & Weaver, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia.
The firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For
more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonandweaver.com


INTEGRATED TECH: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Certification of 4 Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled RAIDEL GOMEZ, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
INTEGRATED TECH GROUP, LLC COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and
COMCAST CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-25213-KMW
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify four classes:

Class I - Florida FMWA Class:

   "all persons employed in Florida by INTEGRATED TECH GROUP,
   LLC, as residential cable residential cable installers, who
   were not paid Florida's minimum wage for all hours worked
   within the applicable statute of limitations";

Class II - Florida Section 24 Class:

   "all persons employed in Florida by INTEGRATED TECH GROUP,
   LLC, as residential cable residential cable installers, who
   were not paid Florida's minimum wage for all hours worked
   within the applicable statute of limitations;

Class III - Florida FDUPTA Class:

   "all persons employed in Florida by INTEGRATED TECH GROUP,
   LLC, as residential cable residential cable installers who
   were subjected to Defendants' illegal pay scheme via ITG's
   piece-rate compensation system within the applicable statute
   of limitations; and

Class IV - National Unjust Enrichment Class:

   "all persons employed in the United States by INTEGRATED TECH
   GROUP, LLC, as cable residential cable installers who were
   subjected to Defendants' illegal pay scheme via ITG's piece-
   rate compensation system within the applicable statute of
   limitations".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint Raidel Gomez as
Class Representative; appoint undersigned counsel as class
counsel; and allow him to notify the proposed putative class
members via Court-approved notice.

According to its website, ITG is a "national provider of
fulfillment, construction and project management services to the
cable and telecommunications industries". It purports to "manage
permanently outsourced operational activities in specific markets,
including new customer installations, upgrades, service calls,
dispatch and warehousing." It operates nationally, including in
Florida, Minnesota, South Carolina, and Texas, among other states.

ITG allegedly failed to honor its payment obligations and involved
the Comcast defendants in its scheme. Instead, ITG utilized a
complicated pay structure that, at first glance, appears to
comport with its obligations to pay the putative class members a
piece-rate, plus bonuses, and overtime. However, in reality ITG
set up an intricate methodology making it appear as if these
separate earnings had all been paid, including on the pay stubs
provided by Defendant, when, in reality, Plaintiffs received in
many cases less than minimum wage.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Xlo0HZQy

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                 twells@wfclaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Laura E. Prather, Esq.
          Jason D. Berkowitz, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          Wells Fargo Center
          100 S. Ashley Drive, Suite 2200
          Tampa, FL 3360


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Bid to Amend Securities Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: INTUITIVE SURGICAL SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 5:13-cv-01920-EJD (N.D Cal.), Judge Edward J.
Davila granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the
complaint and denied the defendants' motion to strike unsigned
pleadings.

Lead plaintiffs Employees' Retirement System of the State of
Hawaii and Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund alleged
that institutional defendant Intuitive Surgical, Inc. and
individual executive defendants Gary S. Guthart, Marshall L. Mohr,
and Lonnie M. Smith made numerous false and misleading statements
and omissions regarding the safety and regulatory compliance of
its flagship product, the da Vinci surgical robot system.  The
plaintiffs believe such non-disclosure constitutes securities
fraud since it allegedly caused the value of Intuitive stock to
plummet once the true information was revealed, thereby damaging
investors.

The plaintiffs moved for leave to amend the complaint after the
court-imposed deadline for amendments to the pleadings expired.
The plaintiffs argued they acted diligently under the
circumstances.  The plaintiffs pointed out that the allegations
they seek to add to the complaint were revealed through the
extensive discovery process, which by their account generated
nearly 70,000 of pages of documents and encompassed 14 separate
fact depositions, as well as multiple rounds of interrogatories
and requests for admission and five separate discovery disputes.

Judge Davila noted that the plaintiffs' motion was filed within
weeks of the final document production and final deposition
identified by the plaintiffs.  Under these circumstances, the
judge agreed that the plaintiff's representation constitutes good
cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.  The judge found that the
plaintiffs could not have otherwise met the scheduling order's
amendment deadline to seek the addition of information learned
through discovery since that process was still ongoing at the
time.

Judge Davila also found that the amendments that the plaintiffs
proposed would not substantially alter the action or require the
defendants to undertake an entirely new course of discovery.
Instead, the judge found that the amendments all relate to facts
that were revealed through the discovery process, and would remove
the same withdrawn factual allegations that the defendants cited
as a basis for their opposition.  Judge Davila therefore found
that any prejudice to the defendants is insignificant.

Judge Davila also noted that nothing in the current pleadings
suggests that the plaintiffs have acted with a dilatory motive,
and permitting leave to file an amended complaint will not delay
the presently unscheduled trial of the action or affect scheduling
deadlines in any significant way.

Furthermore, Judge Davila did not share the defendants' opinion
that the proposed amendments are made in bad faith.  The judge did
not find that motivation constitutes "strong evidence" of bad
faith when the result of an amendment may actually be beneficial
to clarifying the allegations at issue.

Judge Davila denied the defendants' motion to strike as the judge
did not find that the plaintiffs' conduct violated Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 11 in a manner that justifies the relief
requested.

A full-text copy of Judge Davila's January 25, 2017 order is
available at https://is.gd/s9ZhLo from Leagle.com.

Spencer Abrams, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur Charles Leahy --
artl@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & dowd LLP, Mary K.
Blasy -- mblasy@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & Danielle Suzanne Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, Lead,
Plaintiff, represented by Alec T. Coquin -- acoquin@labaton.com --
Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Carol C. Villegas --
cvillegas@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Christine M. Fox --
cfox@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Eric J. Belfi --
ebelfi@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, Jonathan
Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac
vice, , Goodkind Labation Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, Mark S. Arisohn -
- marisohn@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice,
Jonathan M. Plasse -- mstocker@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow
LLP, Samuel De Villiers, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Serena Hallowell --
shallowell@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice,
Theodore J. Hawkins -- thawkins@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow
LLP, Danielle Suzanne Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Ekaterini Maria Polychronopoulos, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd
LLP, Ivo Michael Labar -- labar@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe --
wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Shawn A.
Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Susannah Ruth Conn,
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP & Yah E. Demann --
ydemann@gerardfoxlaw.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP.

Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund, Plaintiff,
represented by Carol C. Villegas, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Jonathan
Gardner, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Michael Walter Stocker, Labaton
Sucharow LLP, Serena Hallowell, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Theodore J.
Hawkins, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Shawn A.
Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Susannah Ruth Conn,
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP & Danielle Suzanne Myers,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago,
Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Rae Crutchfield, Cotchett Pitre
and McCarthy LLP.

Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alexander
Barnes Dryer, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Cody Shawn Harris, Keker and
Van Nest LLP, Jo W. Golub, Keker & Van Nest LLP, John Watkins
Keker, Keker & Van Nest LLP, Kate Ellis Lazarus, Keker and Van
Nest LLP, Michael D. Celio, Keker & Van Nest LLP, Philip James
Tassin, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Reid Patrick Mullen, Keker and Van
Nest LLP & Laurie Carr Mims, Keker & Van Nest, LLP.

Lonnie Smith, Gary Guthart, Defendants, represented by Alexander
Barnes Dryer, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Cody Shawn Harris, Keker and
Van Nest LLP, Jo W. Golub, Keker & Van Nest LLP, John Watkins
Keker, Keker & Van Nest LLP, Michael D. Celio, Keker & Van Nest
LLP, Philip James Tassin, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Reid Patrick
Mullen, Keker and Van Nest LLP & Laurie Carr Mims, Keker & Van
Nest, LLP.

Salvatore J. Brogna, Augusto V. Castello, Jerome McNamara, Mark J.
Meltzer, Colin Morales, David Rosa, Defendants, represented by
Cody Shawn Harris, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Jo W. Golub, Keker &
Van Nest LLP, Michael D. Celio, Keker & Van Nest LLP, Philip James
Tassin, Keker and Van Nest LLP & Reid Patrick Mullen, Keker and
Van Nest LLP.

Marshall L. Mohr, Defendant, represented by Alexander Barnes
Dryer, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Cody Shawn Harris, Keker and Van
Nest LLP, Jo W. Golub, Keker & Van Nest LLP, John Watkins Keker,
Keker & Van Nest LLP, Michael D. Celio, Keker & Van Nest LLP,
Philip James Tassin, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Reid Patrick Mullen,
Keker and Van Nest LLP, Kate Ellis Lazarus, Keker and Van Nest LLP
& Laurie Carr Mims, Keker & Van Nest, LLP.

Darian Adel, Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz
LLP, pro hac vice & Michael M. Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Averts Product Liability Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Brad Perriello, writing for MassDevice, reports that Intuitive
Surgical dodged a class-action product liability lawsuit on
Jan. 31 when a federal judge in Georgia dismissed the case with
prejudice.

Plaintiffs Gabriel Fernando Nassar Cure and Dr. Alan Kozarsky sued
Intuitive in June 2016 on behalf of all mitral valve surgery
patients treated using the company's da Vinci robot-assisted
surgery platform over the past 2 years.  Mr. Cure and Dr. Kozarsky
alleged that the da Vinci devices used in their procedures at
Atlanta's St. Joseph's Hospital left tiny metallic particles
behind that eventually found their way to their brains.

Intuitive filed a series of motions to dismiss the case and block
its certification as a class action.  On Jan. 31 Judge Orinda
Evans of the U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia granted 1 of
the motions to dismiss, ruling the others moot based on that
decision.

Judge Evans found that "plaintiff s cannot claim damages for
emotional distress without evidence of a physical injury."

"Plaintiffs allege negligence as to '1 or more instruments that
would ultimately be used in mitral valve repair surgeries,' but
they apparently do not know which instrument caused their injury
because they fail to specify 1.  They allege that 1 of these
instruments was 'defective in design and unreasonably dangerous'
and had 'an unreasonably dangerous manufacturing defect,' but they
offer no evidence of the specific defect at issue other than the
metallic microemboli that have apparently caused no physical
injury.  Plaintiff s also impute knowledge -- 'defendants knew or
had reason to know the instrument was defective and unsafe for use
in patients' -- but offer no evidence to support the allegation.
These statements simply constitute a recitation of the elements of
negligence," Judge Evans wrote.

"In effect, plaintiffs have simply pled every possible applicable
cause of action by listing the elements of strict liability and
negligence and pairing them with conclusory statements with no
evident factual basis.  The plaintiffs 'claim appears to rest
entirely upon the theory that they had no metallic microemboli
before surgery and 1 of defendant's many instruments was used, so
defendants must have done something wrong," she wrote.

In May 2016, Intuitive warned that small particulates could be
introduced inside the heart during intra-cardiac procedures using
its da Vinci Xi device.

Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Intuitive said it hadn't received any
reports of injuries related to the high-density polyethylene
particles it turned up during quality inspections of its 5mm-8mm
universal seal or the 12mm & stapler universal seal used with the
da Vinci Xi.  Intuitive said the particulate was found in the
insufflation stopcocks used with the seals.


JOHNSON CONTROLS: No Lone Pine Case Management Order, Judge Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AMOS HOSTETLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., et al., Defendants, Cause No. 3:15-cv-226-
JD-MGG (N.D. Ind.), Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr. denied the motion
filed by Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) for entry of a Lone Pine
Case Management Order.

The putative class action against JCI and Tocon Holdings, LLC
arose out of alleged environmental contamination originated from a
manufacturing plant in Goshen, Indiana operated by JCI from
approximately 1937 through 2006 and then sold to Tocon in 2007.

Claiming personal injury and property damage, the plaintiffs filed
their complaint in state court on May 30, 2014, asserting claims
arising under state law against JCI and Tocon, including common
law claims for trespass, nuisance, negligence, negligent
infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages along with
a statutory environmental legal action claim.  The complaint
sought compensatory and punitive damages from both defendants as
well as an injunction requiring both defendants to remediate the
contamination to non-detect levels.

On May 28, 2015, JCI removed the action to the district court.
JCI filed its first motion for Lone Pine order seeking production
of the damages information at issue in its motion to compel
previously filed in state court.

Lone Pine orders are named after the 1986 environmental
contamination case from which they originated -- Lore v. Lone Pine
Corp., No. L-33606085, 1986 WL 637507 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div.
Nov. 18, 1986).  Lone Pine orders are case management orders, used
typically in complex mass tort litigation, that require plaintiffs
to produce prima facie evidence in support of their claims or risk
dismissal of their case.

After the Court denied its orginal motion with leave to refile,
JCI filed a renewed motion for Lone Pine order on September 15,
2016.  The renewed Lone Pine motion argued issues related to the
timing and scope of class certification and bifurcation which JCI
similarly raised before the state court and Special Master in May
2015.

JCI contended that exceptional circumstances warrant a Lone Pine
order.  According to JCI, the plaintiffs' complaint does not
articulate the specific injuries to the named plaintiffs based on
their exposure to the toxic chemicals migrating from the JCI site.

Judge Gotsch, however, found that the case does not present
sufficiently exceptional circumstances to warrant a Lone Pine
order.  The judge was most convinced that other procedural
mechanisms -- especially motions for summary judgment, the class
certification process, Daubert motions, and motion in limine --
exist for JCI to use to address what it perceives to be the
plaintiffs' failure to prove its case.  Therefore, Judge Gotsch
declined to issue a Lone Pine order as JCI requested.

A full-text copy of Judge Gotsch's January 25, 2017 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/DuIJGk from Leagle.com.

Amos Hostetler, Debbie Hostetler, Rita Chairez, Becky Null, Maria
Tovar, Plaintiffs, represented by John D. Ulmer, Yoder Ainlay
Ulmer & Buckingham LLP, Michael P. O'Neil -- moneil@taftlaw.com --
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Thomas A. Barnard --
tbarnard@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Benjamin
A. Wolowski -- bwolowski@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius &
Hollister LLP & Rodney L. Michael, Jr. -- rmichael@taftlaw.com --
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.

Johnson Controls Inc, Defendant, represented by Andrew E. Skroback
-- askroback@chadbourne.com -- Chadbourne & Parke LLP, pro hac
vice, Lauren T. Lee -- llee@chadbourne.com -- Chadbourne & Parke
LLP, pro hac vice, Scott W. Coyle -- scoyle@chadbourne.com --
Chadbourne & Parke LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas Joseph Hall --
thall@chadbourne.com -- Chadbourne & Parke LLP, pro hac vice &
Kelly J. Hartzler -- kelly.hartzler@btlaw.com -- Barnes &
Thornburg LLP.

Yoder Ainlay Ulmer & Buckingham, Defendant, represented by Daniel
W. Glavin -- dglavin@omwlegal.com -- O'Neill McFadden & Willett
LLP & Michael E. O'Neill -- moneill@omwlegal.com -- O'Neill
McFadden & Willett LLP.


LENDING CLUB: NY Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Cariello, Esq. -- ccariello@orrick.com -- and
Bob Loeb, Esq. -- rloeb@orrick.com -- of Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that on Jan. 30,
a federal district court in the Southern District of New York
granted a motion to compel arbitration in Bethune v. Lending Club
Corporation, et al., a closely watched putative class action
raising important issues for the fintech industry.

The plaintiff filed the complaint in this action in April 2016
against Lending Club and WebBank, challenging a loan obtained
through Lending Club's online platform and issued by WebBank.  He
alleged, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, that the defendants violated state usury laws, state
consumer protection laws, and the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act by lending to borrowers at interest
rates above the usury caps in the borrowers' home states.  The
plaintiff alleged that these laws applied notwithstanding
WebBank's status as an FDIC-insured, state-chartered bank
presumptively entitled to preemption of state usury laws.  He
relied on the Second Circuit's 2015 decision in Madden v. Midland
Funding -- which declined to apply federal preemption in the
context of a non-bank holder of defaulted debt -- and he further
alleged that Lending Club, and not WebBank, was the "true lender"
with respect to the loans at issue.

The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on the
arbitration clause in the loan agreement between the plaintiff and
WebBank.  That clause provided that "[e]ither party to this
Agreement, or LendingClub, may . . . require that the sole and
exclusive forum and remedy for resolution of a Claim be final and
binding arbitration."  And importantly, it defined "Claim" to
encompass "any past, present, or future claim, dispute, or
controversy . . . including . . . the validity or enforceability
of this Arbitration Provision." The defendants argued that the
arbitration clause required arbitration of all issues, including
the enforceability of the arbitration clause itself.

The district court has now agreed, finding that the threshold
question of arbitrability of the dispute was for the arbitrator to
resolve.  Noting the "emphatic federal policy in favor of arbitral
dispute resolution," the court found that there was "clear and
unmistakable evidence from the arbitration agreement" that the
parties had intended to arbitrate the question of the arbitration
clause's enforceability.  The court also made quick work of the
plaintiff's "perfunctory" suggestion that the arbitration
agreement was itself unconscionable.  And crucially, the court
compelled arbitration on a purely individual -- rather than class
action -- basis, citing language in the arbitration clause that
specifically stated that "no arbitration shall proceed on a class,
representative, or collective basis."

Under the Federal Arbitration Act, the court's decision is
potentially subject to immediate appeal to the Second Circuit
under Sec 1292(b).  The decision, especially if it is affirmed,
may provide increased certainty and comfort for the marketplace
lending industry and investors.

Although the court resolved only the threshold question of whether
the enforceability of the arbitration clause is a question for the
court or an arbitral tribunal, the court's reading of the plain
language of the arbitration clause and rejection of the
plaintiff's unconscionability argument suggest that an arbitrator
is likely to find the entire dispute arbitrable.

The right to arbitrate a dispute is, of course, not a resolution
of the underlying legal claims.  Typically, however, arbitration
is a less expensive form of dispute resolution, with modified
discovery rules, accelerated timetables, and confidentiality
restrictions not applicable or available in federal court.

Also highly significant is the court's decision to compel
arbitration only on an individual basis.  By confining the dispute
to the plaintiff's individual claims, the arbitration clause
dramatically reduces the defendants' potential exposure even if
the claims are resolved adversely.


LTG LLC: Faces "Miranda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Miranda, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LTG, LLC, Case No. 6:17-cv-00143-PGB-TBS
(M.D. Fla., January 27, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

LTG, LLC operates a rental car company in Orange County, Florida.

The Plaintiff works as front desk employee from October 2015 to
December 2016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donna V. Smith, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
      1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com
              rcooke@wfclaw.com


MAG ENTERPRISES: Doesn't Properly Pay Dancers, "Morin" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Morin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mag Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Cheerleaders Gentlemen's
Club, Case No. 2:17-cv-00130-CRE (W.D. Penn., January 27, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay exotic
entertainers' premium overtime compensation and for improperly
collecting a portion of the tips received from customers.

Mag Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates Cheerleaders Gentlemen's
Club, which offers adult entertainment services including adult
exotic dancing in the nature of live performances at
various locations, including at 3100 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15201, 2740 South Front Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19148, and 54 Crescent City Boulevard, Gloucester,
New Jersey 08030.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Jamisen Etzel, Esq.
      Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15232
      Telephone: (412)322-9243
      E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
              jetzel@carlsonlynch.com
              kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com


MALLINCKRODT PLC: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in Mallinckrodt
PLC (NYSE:MNK) to the securities class action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the March 27,
2017 Lead Plaintiff deadline.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired securities of MNK between
November 25, 2014 and January 18, 2017 and suffered over $50,000
in losses contact Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.  For more
information visit:

https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/MNK

or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation,
by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing MNK@hbsslaw.com.

Beginning in late 2014, MNK allegedly made assurances to investors
that its drug, Acthar, produces sustainable revenues that were
mostly attributable to sources other than Medicare and Medicaid.

However, on November 16, 2016, a Citron Research report revealed
that the percentage of Acthar 2014 and 2015 revenues attributable
to Medicare alone was over 45% and 48%, respectively.  Citron also
reported that the total percentage of Acthar 2014 and 2015
revenues attributable to both Medicare and Medicaid was over 60%
and 61%, respectively.  This news drove the price of MNK shares
down over 18%.

Then, on January 18, 2017, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission
announced that MNK would pay $100 million to settle charges that
Acthar revenues were the product of an illegal monopoly.  This
news drove the price of MNK down over 5%.

"We're evaluating management's knowledge of facts undermining the
Defendants' assurances to investors," said Hagens Berman partner
Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding MNK
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new SEC
whistleblower program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email MNK@hbsslaw.com.

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national investor-rights law firm headquartered
in Seattle, Washington with offices in 10 cities. The Firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the Firm and its successes can be
found at www.hbsslaw.com


MANITOBA: Flood Evacuees' Suit Certified
----------------------------------------
The class action relating to the damages suffered by members of
the First Nations residing in Manitoba as a result of the 2011
flood is now certified to proceed by way of class action following
the release of a unanimous decision by the Manitoba Court of
Appeal.

In April 2012, McKenzie Lake Lawyers, LLP filed a class proceeding
against The Government of Manitoba alleging the excessive flooding
of the First Nations lands was caused by the operation of the
Government's dams and water control structures.

The class action includes all First Nation residents of
Pinaymootang (Fairford), Little Saskatchewan, Lake St. Martin, and
Dauphin River, whose property on Reserve, real or personal, was
flooded in 2011, or who were evacuated, displaced or were unable
to reside on Reserve because of flooding on Reserve in 2011.
Among the issues the court approved for determination at trial are
whether the Defendant, by its actions caused the flooding to occur
(and if so, were there actions unreasonable), did the Defendant
owe a duty of care to the Plaintiffs in the management and
operation of the water control structures, and was this duty
breached.

Bill Jenkins, one of the lawyers with McKenzie Lake Lawyers, LLP
who spearheaded the action said, "We are very pleased that
individuals who were exposed to the conditions caused by the
flooding will be allowed to go forward with their claims on a
class basis. We look forward to the next steps in this
litigation."

Eric Troniak, local co-counsel for the Plaintiffs on the class
action said, "We look forward to have our day in court to obtain
justice for what has been done to us and for the continued effects
on us. We all want to have a degree of closure and wish to be able
to move on with our lives. Many of the evacuees and their families
continue to endure hardship and suffering caused by the flood."

It is too early at this stage to quantify the claims of class
members if the action is successful, but it is anticipated the
amounts will be significant.


MANPOWER INC: Settlement in "Mata" Suit Gets Initial Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUVENTINA MATA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MANPOWER INC.
/ CALIFORNIA PENINSULA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-03787-
LHK (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Lucy H. Koh granted the
Plaintiff's Renewed Supplemental Motion for Preliminary Approval
of the Class Action Settlement and vacated the February 16, 2017
pre-trial conference and the March 20, 2017 jury trial.

For purposes of the Settlement, the Settlement Class shall consist
of all current and former non-exempt, hourly associates who worked
for Defendant Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula from April 12,
2009 through September 8, 2016 and all current and former non-
exempt, hourly associates who worked for Defendants Manpower Inc.,
ManpowerGroup Inc., and ManpowerGroup US Inc. from February 13,
2009 through September 8, 2016. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any
person who performed work and/or suffered violations of any law
occurring while such person was in the employ of either Manpower
US Inc. and/or CPM LTD d/b/a Manpower of San Diego and Manpower
Temporary Services shall not be considered a Class Member with
respect to such employment.

The Court appointed Plaintiffs Claudia Padilla and Lesli Guido to
serve as Class Representatives while the Plaintiffs' counsels,
Fitzpatrick, Spini & Swanston and Wanger Jones Helsley PC are
appointed as the Class Counsels. CPT Group, Inc. is appointed as
the Settlement Administrator.

Promptly following the entry of the Order, the Settlement
Administrator will prepare a final version of the Class Notice,
incorporating into it the relevant dates and deadlines set in the
Order. The Class Notice will be initially prepared in English and
then, once finalized, translated into Spanish.

The Court scheduled a hearing to determine whether to grant final
approval of the Settlement for May 11, 2017. Not later than 14
calendar days before the deadline for objection or exclusion, the
Plaintiffs are ordered to file a motion for approval of their
Class Counsels attorneys' fees and costs. The motion for Class
Counsels attorneys' fees and costs shall be heard concurrently
with the motion for final approval on May 11, 2017.

Claudia Padilla, et al., Plaintiff, represented by Charles
Swanston, Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston, Bernard James Fitzpatrick,
Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston, David E. Cameron --
dcameron@downeybrand.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley PC & Patrick
Darryn Toole -- ptoole@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley
PC.

Manpower Inc. / California Peninsula, et al., Defendants,
represented by Spencer C. Skeen -- spencer.skeen@ogletree.com --
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart PC, Francis Lawrence Tobin --
frank.tobin@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, LLC, James Patrick Allen --
Patrick.Allen@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins, Jesse
Carter Ferrantella -- jesseferrantella@paulhastings.com -- Paul
Hastings LLP & Timothy Lloyd Johnson --
tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and
Stewart, P.C..


MARK OBENSTINE: Class & Subclasses Certified in "Estakhrian"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled James Estakhrian, et al., the Plaintiffs v.
Mark Obenstine, et al., the Defendants, Case No. CV 11-3480 FMO
(CWx) (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Fernando M. Olguin entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   2. certifying the following class with respect to Plaintiffs'
      claims for professional malpractice, breach of fiduciary
      duty, the UCL and the CLRA:

      "all individuals who were class members in, i.e. did not
      opt out of, Daniel Watt, et al. v. Nevada Property 1, LLC,
      et al., Nevada District Court, Case No. A582541, excluding
      Sanjay Varma";

   3. certifying the following subclass with respect to
      Estakhrian's breach of contract claim:

      "[all] class members who entered into a retainer agreement
      with Defendant Mark Obenstine regarding the subject matter
      of Daniel Watt, et al. v. Nevada Property 1, LLC, et al.,
      Nevada District Court, Case No. A582541";

   4. appointing Plaintiffs as the class representatives for the
      class and subclass; and

   5. appointing Chavez & Gertler, the Irvine Law Group, Mehri
      and Skalet, and the Fay Law Group as class counsel.

The matter arises out of a class action that was litigated in
Nevada state court, Daniel Watt, et al. v. Nevada Property 1, LLC,
et al., Case No. A582541.  On February 11, 2009, plaintiffs filed
a class action complaint regarding the purchase of condominium
units in what became the Cosmopolitan Hotel, located in Las Vegas,
Nevada.  The class members sought to "rescind their purchase
contracts and to obtain a refund of their escrow deposits[.]"  The
Nevada litigation was eventually settled in two stages in 2010.
Thereafter, on April 22, 2011, plaintiff James Estakhrian, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed this action
against defendants Mark Obenstine, Benjamin F. Easterlin, and his
law firm King & Spalding, LLP, Terry A. Coffing and his law firm
Marquis & Aurbach P.C. (now called Marquis Aurbach Coffing, P.C.).
Obenstine, the King & Spalding defendants, and the MAC defendants
are all attorneys who represented the class members in the Nevada
litigation.  The court previously dismissed the MAC defendants for
lack of personal jurisdiction.  The court also approved a class
settlement between plaintiffs and the King & Spalding defendants
and entered judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.  As such, Obenstine is the sole remaining
defendant in this action.

In the ruling, the Court noted that Obenstine contends that "there
are three mechanisms for resolution far superior to a nationwide
class action in California, which has a tenuous connection to the
dispute: (1) resolution before the Court that approved the
settlement and reserved the jurisdiction, (2) separate class
action lawsuits in the various states where Defendants' clients
are domiciled, or (3) separate actions by individual members who
actually suffered harm as a result of the wrongful conduct
alleged."  Obenstine's contentions are unpersuasive, the Court
held.  The scope of the Nevada state court's jurisdiction is
limited to the "administration," "consummation," "enforcement,"
"interpretation," "construction," and "implementation" of the East
and West Tower settlement agreements.  Here, plaintiffs do not
allege a breach of the East or West Tower settlement agreements.
But even assuming they did, or that the issues in this case
concern the terms of the settlement agreements in the Nevada
litigation, Obenstine never
appeared pro hac vice in the Nevada litigation and is not a member
of the Nevada Bar, so there appears to be no basis for the Nevada
court to exercise jurisdiction over him. As for separate class
actions in the various states where class members are domiciled,
the court has already determined that the choice of law doctrine
favors the application of California law in this action.  Further,
Obenstine has not shown that any class member, let alone any of
the subclass members that signed retainer agreements with
Obenstine, are from a state other than California or Nevada.  But
even if there are class members from other states, Obenstine's
proposal is plainly unmanageable, as it would require individual
class members to litigate Obenstine's liability separately even
though it could be established by common evidence.  Also,
Obenstine does not explain how class members from states other
than California would establish personal jurisdiction over him.
Finally, the court is unclear as to the meaning and effect of
Obenstine's third proposal, i.e., "separate actions by individual
members who actually suffered harm as a result of the wrongful
conduct alleged."  Obenstine does not explain how to or who makes
the determination that an "individual member" has "actually
suffered harm as a result of the wrongful conduct alleged."  In
any event, if plaintiffs prove liability, damages may be
calculated by class and subclass. Moreover, "in this circuit. . .
. damage calculations alone cannot defeat certification."
Yokoyama, 594 F.3d at 1094."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SRaztXgx

Additional information about the settlement is available at:

               http://www.cosmo2016settlement.com/


MIDCOAST ENERGY: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP has launched an
investigation into whether the board members of Midcoast Energy
Partners, L.P. (NYSE: MEP) breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Midcoast's outstanding
units by Enbridge Energy Company, Inc.

Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Enbridge will
acquire, for cash, all of the outstanding publicly held common
units of Midcoast at a price of $8.00 per common unit.

The investigation concerns whether the Midcoast board failed to
satisfy their duties to the Company unit holders, including
whether the board adequately pursued alternatives to the
acquisition and whether the board obtained the best price possible
for Midcoast shares of common units. Nationally recognized Johnson
& Weaver is investigating whether the proposed deal price
represents adequate consideration.

If you own the common units of Midcoast and purchased the units
before January 27, 2017, and believe the proposed buyout price is
too low and you're interested in learning more about the
investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact
Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) at 619-814-4471.

                      About Johnson & Weaver, LLP:

Johnson & Weaver, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia.
The firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For
more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonandweaver.com


MILSTEAD & ASSOCIATES: Judge Bumb Certified Settlement Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DANNY FEQUIERE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MILSTEAD &
ASSOCIATES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-07541-RMB-AMD
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Renee Marie Bumb entered an order:

   1. certifying a settlement class of:

      "all consumers with a New Jersey address to whom Milstead &
      Associates, LLC mailed a written communication to the
      Plaintiffs Complaint during the period beginning October
      15, 2014, and ending November 4,2015 where the letter
      stated in relevant part: The Fair Debt Collection Practices
      Act entitles you to dispute the debt, or any portion,
      thereof within thirty (30) days of your receipt of this
      thereof letter. If you do not dispute the debt within that
      period, it will be presumed to be valid."

   2. defining the "Class Claims" as those claims arising from
      Milstead's collection letters, which omitted the term "by
      the debt collector" or its equivalent from the disclosure
      required by 15 U.S.C. section 1692g(a)(3) and which
      allegedly violates 15 U.S.C. section 1692e(10) and
      1692g(a)(3);

   3. appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative;

   4. appointing Plaintiff's counsel, Ryan Gentile, as Class
      Counsel; and

   5. appointing First Class, Inc. as the Settlement
      Administrator to administer notice to the class and the
      settlement.

The Court further entered an order:

   a. approving Parties' proposed Class Notice and directs that
      it be mailed to the last known address of each member of
      the Settlement Class (individually, a "Settlement
      Class Member," collectively, the "Settlement Class
      Members") as shown in Milstead, Inc.'s business records.
      Class Counsel will cause the Class Notice to be mailed to
      Settlement Class Members on or before March 2017. Prior to
      sending the Class Notice, the Settlement Administrator
      shall determine who among the Settlement Class Members have
      supplied the U.S. postal Service with a forwarding address,
      and use any such forwarding address instead of the address
      found in the spreadsheet. Neither the Settlement
      Administrator nor Class Counsel shall be required to skip
      trace any notices returned as undeliverable in an effort to
      obtain valid mailing addresses;

   b. finding that mailing of the Class Notice, and the Parties'
      notice plan, is the only notice required,(and that such
      notice satisfies the requirements of due process pursuant
      to the federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 23,
      the United States Constitution, and any other applicable
      law;

   c. Settlement Class Members shall have until April 14, 2017 to
      exclude themselves from, or object to, the proposed
      settlement. Any Settlement Class members desiring to
      exclude themselves from the action must serve copies of the
      request on the Settlement Administrator postmarked by that
      date;

   d. directing any Settlement Class Members who wish to object
      to the settlement must submit an objection in writing to
      the Clerk of the United States District Court for the
      District of New Jersey, and serve copies of the objection
      on the Settlement Administrator. All objections must be in
      writing and personally signed by the Settlement Class
      Member and include: (1) the objector's name, address,
      telephone number, and the last four digits of their Social
      Security Number; (2) a sentence stating that to the best of
      his or her knowledge s/he is a member of the Settlement
      Class; (3) the name and number of the case: Fequiere v.
      Milstead & Associates, LLC., D.N.J. Case No. I :15-cv-
      07541RMB-AMD (4) the factual basis and legal grounds for
      the objection to the Settlement; (5) the identity of any
      witnesses whom the objector may call to testify at the
      Final Fairness Hearing; and (6) copies of any exhibits the
      objector may seek to offer into evidence at the Final
      Fairness Hearing. The objection must indicate whether the
      Settlement Class Member and/or their lawyer(s) intend to
      appear at the Final Fairness Hearing. Any lawyer who
      intends to appear at the Final fairness Hearing also must
      enter a written Notice of Appearance of Counsel
      with the Clerk of the Court no later than April 14, 2-17,
      and shall include the full caption and case number of each
      previous class action case in which that lawyer(s) has
      represented an objector;

   e. If not already filed, directing Milstead to file with the
      Court proof of compliance with the notice requirements of
      the Class Action fairness Act of 2005,28 U.S.C. section
      1715(b); and

   d. directing final hearing on the fairness and reasonableness
      of the Agreement and whether final approval shall be given
      to it and the requests for fees and expenses by Class
      Counsel will be held on May 1, 2017.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dpvAjMRv


MRO CORPORATION: Judge Seals Discovery Documents in "Wilson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS M. WILSON, SR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. MRO
CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-05279 (S.D. W.Va.), Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal Portions of Exhibits 5 and
6 to Document No. 95 of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery
Against Defendant Ciox Health, LLC.

The Court noted that sealing the designated exhibits to
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery against the Defendant Ciox
Health, LLC, does not unduly prejudice the public's right to
access court documents.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January
24, 2017 is available at https://goo.gl/g763P2 from Leagle.com.

Thomas M. Wilson, Sr., et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Cheryl
A. Fisher, TIANO & O'DELL.

Thomas M. Wilson, Sr., et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Tony L.
O'Dell, TIANO O'DELL & William M. Tiano, TIANO O'DELL.

MRO Corporation, Defendant, represented by Courtney Devon Taylor -
- ctaylor@schnader.com -- SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS, David
Smith -- dsmith@schnader.com -- SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS,
Keith E. Whitson -- kwhitson@schnader.com -- SCHNADER HARRISON
SEGAL & LEWIS & Lori Streets Muldoon, PULLIN FOWLER FLANAGAN BROWN
& POE.

CIOX Health, LLC, Defendant, represented by Devon J. Stewart --
devon.stewart@steptoe-johnson.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON & Russell
D. Jessee -- russell.jessee@steptoe-johnson.com -- STEPTOE &
JOHNSON.

Medi-Copy Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lindsay M.
Gainer -- lgainer@kaycasto.com -- KAY CASTO & CHANEY & Robert Lee
Bandy -- rbandy@kaycasto.com -- KAY CASTO & CHANEY.


MYLAN INC: Faces Class Action Over Clomipramine Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois drug
purchaser on Jan. 30 became the latest to accuse Mylan, Sandoz and
Taro Pharmaceuticals of conspiring to inflate the price of a
generic antidepressant by 1,000 percent, in a class action
launched in New Jersey federal court.

The three companies schemed to push the price of generic
clomipramine from $0.94 per capsule to more than $10 per capsule
in an anti-competitive collaboration that dates back to a February
2013 Generic Pharmaceutical Association meeting in Orlando,
Florida, according to FWK Holdings LLC.  The suit comes on the
heels of a complaint filed in Puerto Rico by a Teamsters benefit
fund that makes nearly identical claims.

FWK inherited antitrust claims from Frank W. Kerr Co., which had
purchased the drug from at least one of the defendants, according
to the suit.

"Defendants' unlawful conduct has successfully eliminated
competition in the market, and plaintiffs and class members have
sustained, and continue to sustain, significant losses in the form
of artificially inflated prices paid to defendants," FWK said,
estimating class-wide damages at hundreds of millions of dollars.

Clomipramine, a prescription antidepressant taken orally to treat
obsessive compusive disorder, panic disorder, depression and
chronic pain, has been on the market since 1996 and is on the
World Health Organization's list of essential medicines, the suit
said.

The trio of defendants dominate the market, with their sales
accounting for about 98 percent of all U.S. generic clomipramine
sales, FSK said.  In 2013, Mylan Inc. and Taro Pharmaceuticals
Industries Ltd. sold more than $96 million worth of the drug each,
with Sandoz Inc. selling more than $7.6 million, according to the
complaint.

In 2015, two years after the collusion allegedly took place,
clomipramine sales hit $519 million -- more than half the total
revenue for the same drug from 2011 to 2014, the suit said,
pointing to this type of growth in a market as mature as the one
for generic clomipramine as evidence of the scheme.

A mature generic market includes several generic competitors, and
since each of their drugs is easily replaced by a competitor's,
pricing tends to be the main difference between the products,
according to FWK.  Prices for prescription generics are generally
determined by reimbursement agreements between health plans and
the pharmacies that dispense the drugs, a process that keeps one
manufacturer from increasing prices for fear of losing sales to
competitors who keep their prices steady, the suit said.

Before May 2013, generic clomipramine had kept its price steady,
but each of the three manufacturers increased the price of their
product in the three months after the February 2013 GPhA
conference.  Without collusion, such a massive price-hike couldn't
have happened, FWK said.

FWK also pointed to the lack of any drug shortages, supply
disruptions or other factors that could explain the increase, as
well as the fact that the price of the drug remained flat in
countries such as the U.K., Denmark and Norway.

The company aims to bring Sherman Act claims on behalf of a class
of direct purchasers that bought generic clomipramine
hydrochloride in its 25, 50 and 75 mg capsules from any of the
three defendants in the U.S. from May 3, 2013 to the present.

The lawsuit follows a number of other lawsuits filed in the last
month, including one also filed on Jan. 30 in New Jersey federal
court, that accuse a variety of generic drug manufacturers of
using GPhA meetings as incubators of antitrust conspiracies.

None of the defendants could be reached for comment on Jan. 31.

FWK is represented by John D. Radice of the Radice Law Firm PC,
Thomas M. Sobol -- tom@hbsslaw.com -- David S. Nalven --
davidn@hbsslaw.com -- and Lauren Guth Barnes -- lauren@hbsslaw.com
-- of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Joseph M. Vanek, David
P. Germaine and Jeffrey R. Moran of Vanek Vickers & Masini PC.

Counsel information for the defendants was unavailable on
Jan. 31.

The case is FWK Holdings LLC v. Mylan Inc. et al., case number
1:17-cv-00626 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.


MYLAN INC: NECA-IBEW Sues Over Generic Clomipramine-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Mylan, Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd., Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Sandoz, Inc.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01128 (D.P.R. January 27, 2017), arises from the
Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement
and conspiracy in restraint of trade to artificially raise, fix,
maintain or stabilize the prices of generic Clomipramine in the
United States.

Generic clomipramine hydrochloride is a tricyclic antidepressant
used for the treatment of obsessive compulsive disorder, panic
disorder, major depressive disorder and chronic pain.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andres W. Lopez, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDRES W. LOPEZ, P.S.C.
      P.O. Box 13909
      San Juan, PR 00908
      Telephone: (787) 294-9508
      Facsimile: (787) 294-9519

          - and -

      David W. Mitchell, Esq.
      Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
      Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
      Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
      Arthur L. Shingler III, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA  92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com
              bomara@rgrdlaw.com
              xanb@rgrdlaw.com
              cmedici@rgrdlaw.com
              ashingler@rgrdlaw.com

        - and -

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
              RRothman@rgrdlaw.com
         - and -

      Paul J. Geller, Esq.
      Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL  33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
      E-mail: PGeller@rgrdlaw.com
              mdearman@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Damien J. Marshall, Esq.
      Duane L. Loft, Esq.
      Matthew S. Tripolitsiotis, Esq.
      BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor
      New York, NY  10022
      Telephone: (212) 446-2300
      Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
      E-mail: dmarshall@bsfllp.com
              dloft@bsfllp.com
              mtripolitsiotis@bsfllp.com

         - and -

      Patrick J. O'Hara, Esq.
      CAVANAGH & O'HARA
      2319 West Jefferson Street
      Springfield, IL  62702
      Telephone: (217) 544-1771
      Facsimile: (217) 544-9894


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Former Cheerleaders File Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
ABC13 reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against
the NFL just days ahead of the Super Bowl.  The suit was filed in
San Francisco by a former 49ers cheerleader.

The lawsuit has been filed against the NFL as a whole, but also
expressly names the 49ers and the Oakland Raiders as defendants.

The cheerleaders filing the suit say in some cases they were
getting paid less than minimum wage, for some, that was less than
$5,000 a year.  The suit claims the NFL and teams conspired by
agreeing to pay female athletes below their market value.

"A lot of the stuff that goes on makes us feel like second class
citizens and it's time for us to be treated fairly and paid our
fair market value.  The value we bring to these teams," said
Caitlin Yates, former Raiderette.

Ms. Yates was with the Oakland raiders for five years.  She's not
the lead plaintiff, but says she was only paid $125 a game in one
lump sum at the end of the year.  An NFL spokesperson did not
comment to ABC News, saying they were not aware of the lawsuit.


NEA DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Driver's OT, "Johnson" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NEA Delivery, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00265-
ESW (D. Ariz., January 27, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay delivery drivers' overtime wages for
work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

NEA Delivery, LLC operates a package delivery company that
contracts to deliver packages on behalf of third parties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      222 E. Erie Street, Suite 210
      Milwaukee, WI 53202
      Telephone: (414) 271-8650
      Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com
              ljohnson@hq-law.com
              tmaynard@hq-law.com


NEAL TRUCKING: Poisson Seeks Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Ronald Poisson, individually and on
behalf of all the classes and aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff,
v. Neal Trucking, Inc., Randy Neal, David Beal, and Does 1 through
10, the Defendants, Case No. 5:13-cv-02241-VAP-DTB (C.D. Cal.),
Mr. Ronald Poisson will move the Court for the entry of an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the parties' stipulation for
      preliminary approval Of Settlement of Class Claims with
      respect to the following cases: (1) Poisson v. Neal
      Trucking, Inc., Randy Neal, and David Beal; Case No.
     EDCV13-2241 VAP (DTBx);

   2. preliminarily certifying the proposed Settlement Classes
      for purposes of settlement only;

   3. preliminarily appointing Plaintiff as the Class
      Representative;

   4. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for each of the
      respective Settlement Classes;

   5. directing that the Classes be given notice of the pendency
      of this action and the Settlement; and

   6. scheduling a hearing to consider final approval of the
      settlement, entry of a proposed final judgment, and
      Plaintiffs' counsel's application for an award of
      attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses, as
      well as an Enhancement Award to the Class Representatives.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H6uM4Pck

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq.
          THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
          3311 East Pico Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90023
          Telephone: (213) 599 8255
          Facsimile: (213) 402 3949
          E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com

               - and -

          Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
          THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
          PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P. C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 883 4900
          Facsimile: (818) 883 4902
          E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com


NEUSTAR INC: Faces "Parshall" Securities Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. NEUSTAR, INC., JAMES G. CULLEN, PAUL D.
BALLEW, JOEL P. FRIEDMAN, MARK N. GREENE, LISA A. HOOK, ROSS K.
IRELAND, PAUL A. LACOUTURE, DEBORAH D. RIEMAN, MICHAEL J. ROWNY,
HELLENE S. RUNTAGH , GOLDEN GATE CAPITAL, GIC, AERIAL TOPCO, L.P.,
and AERIAL MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00060-
UNA (D. Del., January 20, 2017), alleges that Defendants omitted
material information with respect to the proposed acquisition of
Neustar by Golden Gate Capital, in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act.

NeuStar, Inc. provides hard-to-replicate data sets and proprietary
analytics worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard A. Maniskas
     RM LAW, P.C.
     995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
     Wayne, PA 19087
     Phone: (484) 588-5516
        - and -

     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Phone: (302) 295-5310


NORTHWEST COLLECTORS: Ceragioli Class Certification Bid Withdrawn
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sara L. Ellis entered an order in the lawsuit styled
Dennis Ceragioli, Plaintiff, v. Northwest Collectors Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. Case 1:16-cv-07706 (N.D. Ill.), withdrawing a
motion to certify a class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on January 31,
2017, a status hearing is set for Feb. 22, 2017 at 9:30 AM. If
stipulation to dismiss is filed prior to Feb. 22, 2017, no
appearance is necessary.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=70iI7j3W


OCWEN LOAN: Judge Approves $600K Deal to Settle Software Error
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins at Law360 reports a California federal judge said
on January 27 she will approve Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC's $600,000
settlement resolving class action claims that it failed to apply
certain mortgage payments to borrower accounts because of a
software bug, calling the deal "an excellent result" for the
roughly 9,000 class members.

U.S. District Judge Beth Freeman said the deal fairly and
adequately compensates class members, that the parties adequately
notified the members, and that there's "really nothing for class
members to complain about."

"It's well within the range of an adequate -- if not excellent --
settlement," Judge Freeman said.

Under the proposed settlement, more than 650 out of 9,000
potential class members who hold approximately 7,000 loans will
receive 100 percent of any actual damages they incurred to their
loans plus $57.33 per loan as statutory damages. The plan also
awards approximately $179,000 in attorneys' fees, which Judge
Freeman said represented about 29 percent of the settlement, which
is less than what class counsel is entitled to.

The deal's approval marks an end to a class action filed by lead
plaintiff Joseph C. Messineo in the Superior Court for Santa Clara
County in May 2015. The original complaint alleged Ocwen had
"engaged in a pattern and practice of misapplying borrowers'
payments to their home mortgage loans" by failing to timely apply
excess funds to reduce the principal balances of the loans,
allowing Ocwen to charge and collect additional interest on the
loans in violation of the Truth in Lending Act.

Messineo sought to certify a nationwide class of borrowers whose
loans had been serviced by Ocwen, and the case was removed to
federal court. After Ocwen generally denied the allegations, the
parties entered into negotiations.

During mediation, they exchanged "multiple rounds" of information
and discovered that the reporting error was caused by software
coding "bugs" that had been introduced into Ocwen's servicing
platform through a vendor's October 2013 update, according to memo
in support of final settlement approval. Shortly after, the
parties finalized the terms of their settlement, and in September,
the court preliminarily approved an amended settlement and
conditionally certified a nationwide class.

The parties mailed notices to 9,374 class members of which 150
were undeliverable, according to the memo. The parties also
notified 55 different federal and state regulators, including the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is charged by the
provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act with enforcement of the TILA statute.

During a fairness hearing on Friday, class counsel Daniel J.
Muller of Ventura Rossi Hersey & Muller LLP told Judge Freeman
that no class member or government agency has objected to the deal
and only one person has opted out of it. The court also received
823 claims for account adjustment relief, representing about 650
of the 7,000 unique loans within the class.

Although the number of claims submitted might seem low, it's
because most of the borrowers never made mortgage payments higher
than their monthly minimum, and therefore weren't affected by the
miscalculation, Muller explained. They still received a $57.33
credit to their accounts, even if they didn't submit a claim, he
said.

Ocwen attorney Michael R. Pennington of Bradley Arant Boult
Cummings LLP said in this particular situation, the error was not
in effect for a long time, and there wasn't a "high-dollar impact"
of the error. It primarily impacted borrowers who had made large
mortgage payments and still accrued interest on their accounts.
However, if those borrowers filed a claim, they received 100
percent relief, which is "a very rare case," he said.

Judge Freeman said that those were "good points," and frankly the
administrator would distribute the settlement funds even without a
claim, and basically all class members have to do is cash a check.
Jude Freeman said she would file a "lengthy order" approving the
deal soon.

The class is represented by Anthony F. Ventura --
aventura@venturarossi.com -- and Daniel J. Muller --
dmuller@venturarossi.com -- of Ventura Rossi Hersey & Muller LLP.

Ocwen is represented by Robert J. Campbell --
rcampbell@bradley.com -- and Michael R. Pennington --
mpennington@bradley.com -- of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP and
John B. Sullivan -- jbs@severson.com -- and Mary kate Kamka --
mkk@severson.com -- of Severson & Werson PC.

The case is Messineo v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, case number
5:15-cv-02076, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


OPHTHOTECH CORP: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm announces a class action
lawsuit against Ophthotech Corporation. Investors, who purchased
or otherwise acquired Ophthotech shares between May 11, 2015 and
December 12, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged
to contact the firm prior to March 13, 2017, also known as the
lead plaintiff motion deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, call Brian Lundin,
Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at --
brian@lundinlawpc.com --

No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

The Complaint alleges Ophthotech issued deceptively positive
reports about the success and potential of its treatment Fovista,
used in combination with Lucentis, an anti-vascular endothelial
growth factor agent on the market, despite knowing that the phase
3 clinical trial of Fovista would be unsuccessful in achieving its
primary endpoint. According to the Complaint, these statements
caused Ophthotech stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.

On December 12, 2016, Ophthotech revealed that the trial had
failed to achieve its primary endpoint. When this news was
released to the investing public, the value of Ophthotech stock
fell, causing investors harm.


OREGON: 10 Districts Opt Out of Timber Management Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Paul, writing for Albany Democrat-Herald, reports that only
10 of 150 taxing districts that could be affected by a $1.4
billion lawsuit over timber management on some state lands have
chosen not to participate, according to Roger Nyquist, chairman of
the Linn County Board of Commissioners.

The districts, which range from county boards of commissioners to
school districts to library districts, had a deadline of
5:00 p.m. Jan. 25 to opt out.  But postmarks also counted, so
attorneys waited until Jan. 30 to determine the final list of
participants.

Of the 10 districts that opted out, five are located in Clatsop
County, including the Board of Commissioners, the Clatsop County
Fair, 4-H and Extension Service District, Road District No. 1 and
the Rural Law Enforcement District.

Clatsop County has more than 147,000 acres of the state forest
lands at issue in the lawsuit and could have received as much as
$100 million if the plaintiffs prevail.

Locally, the only district to opt out was the Benton County Soil &
Water Conservation District.  Others were the Sunset Empire Park &
Recreation District (Seaside), the Clackamas County Soil
Conservation District, the Port of Portland and the Washington
County Rural Fire Protection District No. 2 (Tualatin Valley Fire
and Rescue).

Remaining in the lawsuit, initially filed by Linn County, are 140
other counties and taxing districts.

Mr. Nyquist said attorney John DiLorenzo -- johndilorenzo@dwt.com
-- of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Portland would tentatively file
the complete list of remaining districts in Linn County Circuit
Court on Feb. 3.  The case is being heard by Judge Daniel Murphy.

The lawsuit argues that the state of Oregon and the Oregon
Department of Forestry have failed to maximize logging revenues
from 650,000 acres of state forest trust lands scattered among the
15 counties that contain some of the land.

The lawsuit essentially alleges breach of contract: The claim is
that state managers failed in their duty to generate as much
revenue as possible from the state forest lands, mainly logged-
over or fire-damaged properties that were acquired by counties
through tax foreclosures starting in the 1920s and then turned
over to the state for management.

A 1939 law says these lands must be managed for "the greatest
permanent value to the state."  At the time, the assumption was
that "greatest permanent value" meant maximizing timber harvests
from the lands, thereby maximizing revenue flowing to the
counties.

But over the years, the state broadened the definition of
"greatest permanent value" so that it included other goals as
well, such as clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational
opportunities and carbon storage.  As those goals came on line,
the money flowing to the counties started to erode, hence the
claim that the state has breached its contract with the counties.

Linn County filed the lawsuit on behalf of an estimated 150 total
districts or government entities, and Judge Murphy gave them two
months to opt out after he certified the class.
Get news headlines sent daily to your inbox

Linn County could receive up to $90 million if the plaintiffs
prevail.  The county shares more than 47,000 acres of the Santiam
State Forest with Marion and Clackamas.  Benton County has about
8,000 acres of state forest lands.

The $1.4 billion monetary total sought is based on an estimated
$35 million per year that the suit claims the forest trust land
counties should have received but did not, beginning in 1998, when
the state's management plan was altered. That totals $528.6
million, plus another $25.6 million in interest.

The plaintiffs also seek another $881 million in perpetuity based
on a 4 percent revenue stream.

Other counties in which state forest trust lands are located are
Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Douglas, Josephine, Klamath,
Lane, Lincoln, Marion, Polk, Tillamook and Washington.

Oregon's state forests are: Clatsop State Forest: 136,000 acres in
Clatsop and Columbia counties; Elliott State Forest: 93,000 acres
in Coos and Douglas counties; Gilchrest State Forest: 70,000 acres
in Klamath County; Santiam State Forest: 47,971 acres in Linn,
Marion and Clackamas counties; Sun Pass State Forest: 21,317 acres
near Klamath Falls; Tillamook State Forest: 364,000 acres in
Washington, Yamhill, Tillamook and Clatsop counties.


ORGANIGRAM: Could Face Suit Over Use of Unapproved Pesticides
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Chiu at CBC News reports a medical marijuana patient in
Lower Sackville, N.S., said he's worried after the marijuana he
consumed for nearly a year was recalled by Health Canada because
it was grown with two pesticides that, if heated, can emit
hydrogen cyanide.

John Percy, 67, smokes, vapes and bakes his cannabis to control
pain in his hip caused by osteoarthritis. The former Green Party
leader had been ordering his medical marijuana from OrganiGram in
Moncton, N.B., the only licensed producer in Atlantic Canada.

He said his pain was an "eight out of 10."

"I was shocked," said Percy, when he first learned of the
voluntary recall in late December. The letter said the marijuana
he consumed "tested positive for bifenazate and/or myclobutanil,
both unapproved pesticides and not registered for use on
marijuana."

"I assumed like most patients that the product would be organic,"
he said.

According to Health Canada hydrogen cyanide interferes with how
oxygen is used in the body and may cause headaches, dizziness,
nausea, and vomiting. Larger concentrations may cause gasping,
irregular heartbeats, seizures, fainting, and even death.

'I got angry'

He said he was willing to take a wait-and-see approach. But less
than two weeks later, there was another, higher-level recall
notice from OrganiGram saying all products manufactured since
February had been recalled.

"That's when I got angry and I started to consider what the
effects on me have been," said Percy, who also sits on the board
of Maritimers Unite for Medical Marijuana.

He said he plans to talk to his doctor about whether the recalled
medical marijuana he'd been consuming, about three grams a day,
has adversely affected his health.

'Patient safety at risk'

Percy said he's upset that Health Canada did not issue a mandatory
recall. Health Canada said no cases of adverse reactions have been
reported.

"Putting patient safety at risk is unacceptable, and for a
government department that is supposed to take care of people's
safety, I think they've fallen down on the job," said Percy.

He said he's written to the health minister and to members of
Parliament. He believes Health Canada should test marijuana for
more than 13 compounds to ensure it's safe for consumption.

Percy said he and other licensed medical marijuana patients have
discussed starting a class-action lawsuit.

Without a licensed producer, he's going to an illegal dispensary -
- and paying 30 per cent more for his medication. There's no
compassionate pricing at the illegal spot, so his monthly
marijuana budget has shot up to about $850 from $600. "It hurts,
it hurts," he said.

He said getting a prescription filled for another one of the 30-
plus licensed producers in Canada would take months, but didn't
want to wait in pain.


PGA INC: "Schilling" Suit Seeks Certification of Opt-out Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Eric Schilling, Blaine Krohn, Erik
Sinclair, David Krall, On behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PGA Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00202-wmc (W.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs move the
Court to certify an Opt-out class of:

   "all PGA employees who, on or after March 31, 2014, received
   pay for their hours worked over 40 hours per week that equaled
   less than 1.5 times the full average straight time cash wage
   that they received during the workweek".

In the alternative, Plaintiffs Schilling, Krohn, and Sinclair move
the Court to certify them as a representatives of a subclass
consisting of:

   "all PGA employees who, on or after March 31, 2014, received
   overtime pay equal to 1.5 times their base rate of pay plus
   their cash fringe rate, rather than 1.5 times both their base
   rate of pay and their cash fringe rate.

Plaintiffs Krohn and Sinclair move the Court to certify them as
the representatives of a subclass consisting of:

   "all PGA employees who, on or after March 31, 2014, received
   overtime pay computed as 1.5 times their rate of pay for the
   type of work performed during overtime hours, rather than 1.5
   times their higher average straight time wage rate earned
   during the workweek".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fC159VXV

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 271 4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271 6308
          E-mail: yh@previant.com


PGA INC: Asks Court to Decertify Class in "Schilling" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Eric Schilling Blaine Krohn, On behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
PGA, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00202-wmc (W.D. Wisc.),
PGA moves the Court to enter an order:

   1. decertifying the class conditionally certified by
      stipulation on November 2, 2016;

   2. dismissing without prejudice any opt-in plaintiffs; and

   3. granting all such other and further relief as the Court
      deems just and appropriate.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=55Az6ZWt

The Defendant is represented by:

          John H. Zawadsky, Esq.
          Robert S. Driscoll, Esq.
          Katherine M. O'Malley, Esq.
          REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C.
          1000 North Water Street, Suite 1700
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 298 1000
          Facsimile: (414) 298 8097
          E-mail: jzawadsky@reinhartlaw.com
                  rdriscoll@reinhartlaw.com
                  komalley@reinhartlaw.com


PIXARBIO CORP: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
PixarBio Corporation securities (OTC: PXRB) from October 31, 2016,
through January 20, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for PixarBio
investors.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the market for PixarBio's securities exhibited
manipulative or deceptive activities; (2) PixarBio's statements in
press releases, third-party promotional materials, and its Form S-
1 regarding, among other things, PixarBio's business combinations
and current shareholders; the identity and qualifications of key
shareholders and employees and its current and prospective
development efforts lacked accuracy; and (3) consequently,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On January 23, 2017, the SEC disclosed the temporary suspension of
PixarBio trading "because the market for the security appears to
reflect manipulative or deceptive activities and because of
questions regarding the accuracy of assertions by PixarBio in
press releases and its Form S-1 concerning, among other things:
(1) the Company's business combinations and current shareholders;
(2) the identity and qualifications of key shareholders and
employees; and (3) the Company's current and prospective
development efforts."

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than March 27, 2017.  If you wish to discuss this action,
have any questions concerning this notice, or your rights or
interests, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) by
email or by phone at 619-814-4471. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

                 About Johnson & Weaver, LLP:

Johnson & Weaver, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia.
The firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For
more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonandweaver.com


PROJECT INVESTORS: Accord with Account Owners Has Initial Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kenneth A. Marra entered an order in the lawsuit entitled
BRANDON LEIDEL, and MICHAEL WILSON, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, PROJECT INVESTORS,
IN C. d/b/a CRYPTSY, a Florida corporation, PAUL VERNON , an
individual, LORIE ANN NETTLES, an individual, RIDGEWOOD
INVESTMENTS, INC., a New Jersey corporation, and KAUSHAL MAJMUDAR,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-80060-KAM (S.D.
Fla.), certifying this class for settlement purposes:

   "a1l CRYPTSY account owners who held Bitcoins, alternative
   cryptocurrencies, or any other form of monies or currency at
   CRYPTSY as of November 1 , 2015 through the date of the final
   approval hearing in this action".

Excluded from the Class are: (l) employees of CRYPTSY, including
its shareholders, officers and directors and members of their
immediate families; (2) any judge to whom this action is assigned
and the judge's immediate family; and (3) persons who timely and
validly opt to exclude themselves from the Class.

Judge Marra further entered an order:

   1. granting motion for preliminary approval of class action
      Settlement;

   2. directing the issuance of class notice;

   3. scheduling a final approval hearing; and

   4. directing the issuance of notice of certification of the
      class as to Defendants Cryptsy and Vernon.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7KCGghvV

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc Wites, Esq.
          WITES & KAPETAN, P.A .
          4400 N. Federal Highway
          Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
          Telephone: (954) 570 8989
          Facsimile: (954) 354 0205

Cryptsy is represented by:

          Patrick Rengstl, Esq.
          PAYTON & REN GSTL, LLC
          2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1600
          Miami, FL 33131

Lorie Ann Nettles is represented by:

          Mark A. Levy, Esq.
          BRINKLEY MORGAN
          200 East Las Olas Blvd., 19th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Ridgewood Investments Inc. and Kaushal Majmudar are represented
by:

          Jose G. Sepulveda, Esq.
          STEARNS WEAVER MILLER
          WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A.
          150 W. Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130


Q.E.D. ENVIRONMENTAL: Asks Court to Deny Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TERRILL JOHNSON, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff,
v. Q.E.D. Environmental Systems Inc., a Michigan corporation; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01454-WHO
(N.D. Cal.), the Defendant will move the Court on March 8, 2017 at
2:00 p.m., before Judge William H. Orrick to deny certification of
class.

The Defendant said, "In this wage-and-hour case, Plaintiff Terrill
Johnson seeks to represent a putative class of Defendant QED's
non-exempt employees. Plaintiff cannot certify a class because the
undisputed evidence, including Plaintiff's own testimony, directly
contradicts all of his class-based allegations. Plaintiff cannot
meet his burden to prove any of Rule 23(a)'s prerequisites of
numerosity, commonality, typicality, or adequacy, nor can he
satisfy any of Rule 23(b)'s requirements for maintenance of a
class action. QED therefore affirmatively moves to deny class
certification. Plaintiff's counsel has known for over a year that
QED's non-exempt employees at its San Leandro, California,
facility could not possibly meet federal numerosity requirements.
During his deposition, Plaintiff confirmed that a maximum of seven
employees in San Leandro could have experienced occasional
interrupted meal breaks. Plaintiff also testified that QED never
had a policy or practice that was in conflict with California law,
that QED never had a policy or practice of shortening employees'
meal breaks, and that he had no knowledge whatsoever of any policy
or practice regarding meal breaks in Defendant's facilities
outside of the San Leandro facility. Moreover, Plaintiff has
admitted that his alleged injury is neither common nor typical.
Plaintiff testified in detail about the unique nature of his
personal claims against QED. Under oath and contrary to the
allegations made by his counsel in the Third Amended Complaint
(TAC), Plaintiff repeatedly asserted that he was a victim of
disparate treatment and that he was allegedly singled out by one
supervisor."

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DTwQE4SQ

The Defendants are represented by:

          Clement L. Glynn, Esq.
          Lauren E. Wood, Esq.
          GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP
          One Walnut Creek Center
          100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 210 2800
          Facsimile: (925) 945 1975
          E-mail: cglynn@glynnfinley.com
                  lwood@glynnfinley.com

               - and -

          Sarah E. Crippen, Esq.
          Amy S. Conners, Esq.
          Ashleigh M. Leitch, Esq.
          BEST & FLANAGAN LLP
          60 South Sixth Street, Suite 2700
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 339 7121
          Facsimile: (612) 339 5897


QUALCOMM INC: Patent Policy Reason for Antitrust Target
-------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham at The Recorder reports the antitrust suits are
coming fast and furious against Qualcomm Inc.

The Federal Trade Commission sued the dominant provider of mobile
phone chipsets Jan. 17. Since then Apple Inc. has sued in the U.S.
and China, claiming billions in allegedly ill-gotten gains. And
now consumers and even a small business that buys mobile phones
for its employees are bringing class actions.

Qualcomm ignored its contractual obligation to license standard-
essential patents at fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory
(FRAND) rates, Bleichmar, Fonti & Auld partner Lesley Weaver wrote
in a complaint filed in San Jose federal court. Rather, the
company is "extracting unreasonably high, unilaterally-determined
royalty payments. Those payments have been passed on to consumers,
according to the FTC."

Hausfeld LLP has filed a similar class action on behalf of
individual consumers. The two plaintiff firms are seeking to
relate their cases to the FTC action, which has been assigned to
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh.

Qualcomm has already been taking an antitrust beating overseas.
The Chinese government fined the company $975 million over
monopolization, and the Korea Fair Trade Commission handed down a
$854 million penalty last month.

The U.S. FTC filed its complaint, accusing Qualcomm of threatening
to disrupt chipset supplies when manufacturers tried to enforce
Qualcomm's FRAND licensing promises. "The risk of losing access to
Qualcomm baseband processors is too great for a cell phone
manufacturer to bear because it would preclude the manufacturer
from selling phones for use on important cellular networks," said
Geoffrey Greene, assistant director of the FTC's bureau of
competition, in the agency's complaint.

Qualcomm has accused the FTC of rushing to court with a flawed
theory in the waning days of the Obama administration at the
bidding of companies such as Apple. It notes that the commission
split 2-1 over whether to file at all. "The complaint seeks to
advance the interests and bargaining power of companies that have
generated billions in profit from sales of products made possible
by the fundamental 3G and 4G cellular technology developed by
innovators like Qualcomm," the company stated in a press release.

Indeed, Apple followed with its own lawsuits. Apple complains,
among other things, that Qualcomm insists on pegging its license
to the sale price of iPhones. "Even when Apple sells an iPhone
with added memory -- 256 GB instead of 128 GB -- Qualcomm collects
a larger royalty just because of that added memory," Apple states
in its complaint, signed by Fish & Richardson partner Juanita
Brooks.
Apple also is represented by Boies Schiller Flexner. The company
contends that Qualcomm tried to "extort Apple into changing its
responses and providing false information to the [Korea] FTC in
exchange for Qualcomm's release of those payments." The case has
been assigned to San Diego U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel.
Qualcomm is represented by Cravath, Swaine & Moore and Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius in the FTC case.


QUALCOMM INC: Sued Over Alleged Baseband Processor Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Key, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Qualcomm Incorporated and Does 1 through 100, Case No.
5:17-cv-00442 (N.D. Cal., January 27, 2017), seeks to put an end
to the Defendants' illegal business practices of acquiring and
maintaining a monopoly in baseband processors through
anticompetitive practices that drive competitors out of the
market, bar new entrants, suppress innovation, and result in
overcharges to consumers who purchase cellular devices.

Qualcomm Incorporated develops, designs, licenses, and markets
worldwide its digital communications products and services through
two wholly-owned subsidiaries: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies
("QCT") and Qualcomm Technology Licensing ("QTL").

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
      Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
      Amanda Bonn, Esq.
      Oleg Elkhunovich, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
      Telephone: (310) 789-3100
      Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
      E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
              ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
              abonn@susmangodfrey.com
              oelkhunovich@susmangodfrey.com

         - and -

      Joseph Grinstein, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
      Houston, TX 77002-5096
      Telephone: (713) 651-9366
      Facsimile: (713) 65-6666
      E-mail: jgrinstein@susmangodfrey.com


RESPOND POWER: Third Circuit Revives False Add Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kat Sieniuc, writing for Law360, reports that the Third Circuit on
Feb. 1 revived a proposed class action claiming a Pennsylvania
energy company lied to customers about the amount of energy
savings they would see after switching power servicers, saying
it's irrelevant to class certification if the consumers had
interpreted their contracts differently.

Named plaintiffs Barbara and Thomas Gillis, and Scott and Kimberly
McClelland asked the circuit court to look over their bid for
class certification in 2015.  The consumers accused Respond Power
LLC -- an energy supply company that entered the Pennsylvania
utility market in 2010 and is licensed by the Pennsylvania Utility
Commission -- of charging higher rates for its energy services
than were marketed in the ads they saw and communicated in
contracts they signed.

The district judge had denied certification, saying there lacked a
common experience among proposed class members' claims because
each named plaintiff had a subjective understanding of the
contract they signed with the energy company.

But after review, the panel could not say with confidence that the
lower court had used proper discretion when making that decision,
determining the district court had "based its denial of class
certification on irrelevant evidence of plaintiffs' individualized
understandings of Respond's standard form contract."

Vacating the district court ruling and sending back the case, the
Third Circuit panel held that "logically . . . standard form
contracts should be interpreted uniformly as to all similarly
situated signatories whenever it is reasonable to do so, rendering
individual, transaction-specific interpretations inapposite."

The suit dates back to May 2014, when the Gillises and the
McClellands, who entered variable rate agreements with Respond in
2013, first accused the power company of lying to them about the
cost savings they would see from making the switch to its
services.  That switch saw the named plaintiffs ultimately pay
more for their electricity than they would have had they remained
with their local providers, according to the suit.

But the district court denied their motion for class
certification, saying the consumers had different understandings -
- or no understanding at all -- about how they were being billed
for Respond's electricity services, and that there was no telling
whether those understandings translated to other class members.

The Gillises argued on appeal that "under Pennsylvania law, the
putative class members' individual understandings and
interpretations of the variable rate provision have no place in
the district court's contract construction in this case, and thus
should not have factored into the class certification analysis."

The Third Circuit on Feb. 1 agreed.

The named plaintiffs are seeking to represent a proposed class
made up of about 50,000 customers who entered variable rate energy
agreements with Respond between November 2010 and
June 2014.

Circuit Judges Michael A. Chagares, Joseph A. Greenaway Jr. and
Luis Felipe Restrepo sat on the panel for the Third Circuit.

Counsel information for the parties in the appeal was not
immediately available.

The case is Barbara Gillis et al v. Respond Power LLC, case number
15-3877, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.


RIDDELL: Named Defendant in Concussion Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Jason Scott, writing for Athletic Business, reports that on Jan.
30, football helmet manufacturer Riddell was named as a defendant
in a class-action lawsuit claiming they didn't properly protect
football players from head injuries or inform them about the long-
term risks.

The suit, filed in a California court by the firm Circelli, Walter
& Young, seeks damages for healthcare costs, lost wages and other
damages, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.  It comes on
the heels of a separate class-action suit from the firm, filed
earlier in January, in which the NCAA and the Big 12 Conference
are the named defendants.

The suit against Riddell alleges that the marketing for a
particular line of helmets misrepresented their efficacy at
reducing head-injuries and concussions.  A University of
Pittsburgh Medical Center study, funded by Riddell, claimed that
that line of helmets could reduce the likelihood of a player
suffering a concussion by more than 30 percent.  The Star-Telegram
reports that in 2000, a biomechanics firm sent a report to Riddell
that no helmet is capable of preventing concussions.

"Our complaint against Riddell is that Riddell designed and
marketed a line of helmets that they claimed would reduce
concussions when in reality they knew that marketing claim was
false," attorney Vincent Circelli said.  "Players relied on this
concussion reduction marketing and suffered multiple concussions
while wearing Riddell helmets."

This suit isn't the first bout of legal trouble for the helmet
manufacturer.  Two suits, filed in July on behalf of former NFL
players, claimed that Riddell failed to properly educate the
plaintiffs about the long-term dangers of concussions and head
injuries, and that the firm knew their equipment couldn't protect
against those risks.

In a statement, the company said: "Riddell has been working with
the football community for over a decade and a half to understand
the on-field circumstances contributing to concussions and to
develop state-of-the-art helmets that reduce concussion risk.
Plaintiffs' recycled allegations ignore the more than 15 years of
work by Riddell, government agencies, football organizations,
sports leagues, schools, industry groups and others to advance
concussion awareness."


ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Faces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 2
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. securities
(RRTS) from May 8, 2014 through January 30, 2017, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Roadrunner investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Roadrunner class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1044.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Roadrunner lacked effective internal controls over
financial reporting; (2) Roadrunner's financial statements dating
back to the beginning of 2014 overstated the estimated results of
operations; (3) Roadrunner's financial statements contained errors
relating to unrecorded expenses from unreconciled balance sheet
accounts including cash, driver and other receivables, and
linehaul and other driver payables; and (4) Roadrunner's financial
statements dating back to the beginning of 2014 were not reliable.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 3, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1044.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free
at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com


ROYAL PIZZA: Faces "Ixcoy" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
DIMAS IXCOY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against ROYAL PIZZA OF THIRD AVENUE CORP.
(d/b/a ROYAL PIZZA), ROYAL PIZZA 1 OF THIRD AVENUE CORP. (d/b/a
ROYAL PIZZA), ADEM KANDIC and NATHANIEL KIM, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00454 (S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2017), was filed to recover
alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the "spread of
hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner.

Defendants owned, operated, and/or controlled a pizzeria.
Plaintiff is purportedly employed as a delivery worker.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200


SA GEAR: Must Defend Against "Williamson" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVE WILLIAMSON and RHONDA CHRISTINE LEMASTER, On
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. S.A. GEAR COMPANY, INC., AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE
PARTS, INC., and AUTOZONE STORES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 15-
CV-365-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.), District Judge Staci M. Yandle denied
the Defendants' motion to dismiss and strike the Plaintiffs'
nationwide and multi-state allegations.

The case involves a class action filed by the Plaintiffs against
the Defendants S.A. Gear Company, Inc., Autozone, Inc., Autozone
Parts, Inc., and Autozone Stores, Inc. alleging that the
Defendants manufactured, distributed, advertised and/or sold
defective timing chain tensioners. The Defendants argued that the
Plaintiffs' class claims cannot be certified because the claims
would have to be litigated under the different consumer, fraud and
warranty laws of 30 states.

The Court opined that the cases relied upon by the Defendants in
support of their motion were decided at the class certification
stage, not in consideration of motions to dismiss and/or strike.
The Court further opined that, whether a Plaintiff has fulfilled
Rule 23, class action requirements is not an appropriate inquiry
at the motion to dismiss and/or motion to strike stage because
class determinations generally involve considerations that are
enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the
plaintiff's cause of action. Hence, the Court denied the
Defendants' motion.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated January 23, 2017
is available at https://goo.gl/5Gb2x4 from Leagle.com.

Rhonda Christine LeMaster, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by
Gregory J. Pals, Driscoll Firm, P.C. & John J. Driscoll, Driscoll
Firm, P.C..

S.A. Gear Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan H.
Garside -- jgarside@foxgalvin.com -- Fox Galvin LLC & Sarah B.
Mangelsdorf -- smangelsdorf@foxgalvin.com -- Fox Galvin LLC.

AutoZone, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Jonathan D. Jay
-- jjay@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC, Anne T. Regan
-- aregan@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC & Michael R.
Cashman -- mcashman@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Handley" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HANDLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated who consent to their inclusion in this collective action,
Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. fka SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a New York Domestic
Business Corporation, Defendants, Case 3:17-cv-00097-JE (D. Or.,
January 20, 2017), contends that "Field Sales Manager" employees
are: (i) entitled to unpaid wages from Defendant for overtime work
for which they did not receive overtime premium pay, as required
by law, (ii) entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act; (iii) entitled to declaratory relief; and
(iv) entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant researches, develops and markets a variety of personal
and business communications products throughout North America
including handheld wireless phones, wireless communications
infrastructure systems and enterprise communication systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gary Abbott Parks, Esq.
     NORTHWEST WAGELAW, LLC
     9220 SW Barbur Blvd Ste 119-312
     Portland, OR 97219-5428
     Phone: (503) 295-0431
     Fax: (503) 655-8244
     E-mail: Gary.parks@northwestwagelaw.com


SOHAB INC: Faces "Padron" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Osvaldo Padron, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Sohab Inc. d/b/a European Republic, Aziz
Yosofi, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 2:17-cv-00502 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 29, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay non-exempt restaurant employees minimum wage and premium
overtime pay for hours worked beyond 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 126 West
Merrick Road, Freeport, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Stein, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 563-9884


SOUTHERN COMPANY: Monroe County Fund Files Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
MONROE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. THE
SOUTHERN COMPANY, THOMAS A. FANNING, ART P. BEATTIE, EDWARD DAY,
VI and G. EDISON HOLLAND, JR., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00241-
MHC (N.D. Ga., January 20, 2017), arises out of the failure of the
Defendants to keep a promise to complete the building of its
"clean coal" plant in Kemper County, Mississippi by May 2014.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants made false statements resulting
to its stocks trading at artificially inflated prices in violation
of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act.

The Southern Company is a utility holding company based in
Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John C. Herman, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     Monarch Tower, Suite 1650
     3424 Peachtree Road, N.E.
     Atlanta, GA 30326
     Phone: 404/504-6500
     Fax: 404/504-6501

        - and -

     Daniel S. Drosman, Esq.
     Darryl J. Alvarado, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101-8498
     Phone: 619/231-1058
     Fax: 619/231-7423

        - and -

     Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
     VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
     79 Alfred Street
     Detroit, MI 48201
     Phone: 313/578-1200
     Fax: 313/578-1201


SOUTHERN COMPANY: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of The
Southern Company (NYSE: SO) from April 25, 2012, and October 29,
2013, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Southern Company investors under the
federal securities laws.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose adverse information about the progress of the Kemper
Plant, reassuring investors that the project would be completed by
the critical May 2014 deadline, even after cost overruns and other
delays began to materialize. Once the true details were made known
to the investing public, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

If you have held Southern Company shares continuously prior to
April 25, 2012, you may have standing to hold Southern Company
harmless from the damage the officers and directors caused by
making them personally responsible. You may also be able to assist
in reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent future
wrongdoing.

If you are a Southern Company shareholder and are interested in
learning more about the investigation or your legal rights and
remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) at
619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number.

                      About Johnson & Weaver, LLP:

Johnson & Weaver, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia.
The firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For
more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonandweaver.com


STINGRAY PRESSURE: Faces "Lackie" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Lackie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Stingray Pressure Pumping LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00083-
EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio., January 27, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay field mechanics employee's overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Stingray Pressure Pumping LLC own and operate an oil and gas field
services company headquartered in St. Clairsville, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
      Nilges Draher, LLC
      7266 Portage St. N.W.  Suite D
      Massillon, OH 44646
      Telephone: (330) 470-4428
      E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
              sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


TIME WARNER: Manigo et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned LOIS A. MANIGO, ORLANDO GUTIERREZ, PHILIP
MARTINEZ, PATRICIA VALLADARESGALLEGOS, SHANA GILMORE,
AND WARREN V. NICHOLS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC. and
TWC ADMINISTRATION, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06722-
JFW-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on
March 27, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., for an order certifying class and
subclasses:

Class:

   "all persons who, at any time in the 4 years preceding the
   filing of this lawsuit through the date of final disposition
   or final judgment in this action, are/were employed by
   Defendants (one or more of them) as a non-exempt dispatcher in
   the state of California (Class Members);

Late Meal Period Sub-Class:

   "all Class Members who, at any time in the 4 years preceding
   the filing of this lawsuit through the date of final
   disposition or final judgment in this action, were required to
   start their first meal period later than the end of their
   fifth consecutive hour of work on days in which they worked at
   least 6 hours";

Second Meal Period Sub-Class:

   "all Class Members who, at any time in the 4 years preceding
   the filing of this lawsuit through the date of final
   disposition or final judgment in this action, were not
   permitted to take a second meal period on days in which they
   worked at least 10 hours";

Rest Period Sub-Class:

   "all Class Members who, at any time in the 4 years preceding
   the filing of this lawsuit through the date of final
   disposition or final judgment in this action, were not
   provided legally complaint rest breaks by Defendants in
   violation of California Labor Code section 226.7";

Itemized Wage Statements Sub-Class:

   "all Class Members who, at any time in the 4 years preceding
   the filing of this lawsuit through the date of final
   disposition or final judgment in this action, were not
   provided accurate itemized wage statements in accordance with
   California Labor Code section 226(a) and Industrial Welfare
   Commission Wage Orders";

Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class:

   "all Class Members who are no longer employed by Defendants,
   in that they quit or were discharged from employment, and who
   were not paid all wages earned and owed in a timely manner as
   required by California Labor Code section 203".

Off-the-Clock Sub-Class:

   "all Class Members who, at any time in the 4 years preceding
   the filing of this lawsuit through the date of final
   disposition or final judgment in this action, were not
   compensated for time spent booting up and shutting down
   computer software before and after their reported work times,
   resulting in work performed off-the-clock".

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. designating Plaintiffs as the representatives of the class;
      and

   2. appointing WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC and THE LAW OFFICE OF
      GEORGE MOSCHOPOULOS, APC as counsel for the class.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PqhLX2LB

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rhonda H. Wills, Esq.
          WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1776 Yorktown, Suite 570
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 528 4455
          Facsimile: (713) 528 2047
          E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com

               - and -

          George P. Moschopoulos, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF
          GEORGE MOSCHOPOULOS, APC
          34197 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 100
          Dana Point, CA 92629
          Telephone: (714) 904 1669
          Facsimile: (949) 272 0428
          E-mail: georgem@logmapc.com


TRUMP NATIONAL: Judge Awards $5.7MM Judgment in Golf Club Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bandell, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports
that a federal judge has awarded a group of golf club members a
$5.7 million judgment against the Trump Organization's golf club
in Jupiter.

The property is owned by President Donald Trump, although he
turned over control of his companies to his two oldest sons. Eric
Trump testified at the trial in 2016.  The plaintiff attorneys
deposed Donald Trump for the case.

A class action of golf club members, led by Norman Hirsch, Matthew
Dwyer and Ralph Willard, filed the complaint against Jupiter Golf
Club, doing business as the Trump National Golf Club Jupiter, and
RBF LLC, doing business as the Ritz-Carlton Golf Club & Spa
Jupiter, in U.S. District Court in West Palm Beach in 2013.

Trump purchased the property from Ritz-Carlton in 2012.

Attorney Herman Joseph Russomanno, of Russomanno & Borrello in
Miami, said the Trump National Golf Club Jupiter plans to appeal
the court's ruling.

The plaintiff class was represented by Farmer Jaffe Weissing
Edwards Fistos & Lehrman attorneys Bradley James Edwards --
brad@pathtojustice.com -- Seth Michael Lehrman --
seth@pathtojustice.com -- Steven R. Jaffe --
steve@pathtojustice.com -- and Mark S. Fistos --
mark@pathtojustice.com

Mr. Lehrman said he doesn't believe the Trump Organization will
appeal.  The result of the case should have been obvious to anyone
who watched the trial, he said.

"We expect that both the Trump Organization and President Trump
have more significant things to attend to," Mr. Lehrman said.  "We
believe they are committed to the rule of law, they will do the
right thing and ensure a just result that fully satisfies the
judgment."

The plaintiffs claimed that Mr. Trump's company failed to refund
their club membership deposits under the terms of their original
agreements with Ritz-Carlton.  There are 65 class members who
could collect under the judgment.

These people had previously notified the Ritz-Carlton that they
wanted to resign their membership, but they were not allowed to
leave until new members signed up to replace them, so they had to
continue paying dues.  They would be refunded once they left,
although that could take a year or more.

"The plan documents, as property interpreted, were intended to
provide club members on the resignation list with continuing right
to use the club facilities until their membership was reissued to
a new member, provided the club member was otherwise in good
standing with the club," U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra ruled
on Feb. 1.

The people who signed up for refundable memberships under the
Ritz-Carlton Golf Club & Spa Jupiter were entitled to demand a
refund of their deposit within 30 days if the club recalled their
membership, according to their membership agreements.

Trump personally held a town hall meeting at the club in December
2012 to discuss changes to its membership, the ruling said.  He
then sent letters to members who had planned to resign, asking
them to either opt in at a reduced rate for three years; opt out
and pay higher dues, but keep their rights to a refund; or remain
on the resignation waiting list, but pay no club dues and have no
club access.  The plaintiff class chose the third option.

"As the owner of the club, I do not want them to utilize the club
nor do I want their dues," Mr. Trump said in the 2012 letter.  "In
other words . . . if you choose to remain on the resignation list,
you're out."

Starting on Jan. 1, 2013, members of the class on the resignation
waiting list were denied access to the club, regardless of their
willingness to pay dues.  But in February 2013, the Trump National
Golf Club Jupiter decided to continue charging the plaintiffs dues
while still not giving them access to the club, the judge ruled.

Judge Marra ruled that this action constituted a recall of their
membership and entitled them to refunds of their deposits.

"By categorically denying all class members all rights to club
access because they remained on the resignation waiting list as of
December 31, 2012, defendant revoked or cancelled their
memberships, thus recalling their memberships," he ruled. "Under
their membership agreements, plaintiffs and the class members were
entitled to refunds of their deposits within 30 days of that date,
which to date defendant has failed to provide. Because defendant
did not refund class members' deposits by January 30, 2013, it
committed a material breach of the membership agreement."

The judge ruled Trump National Golf Club Jupiter assumed the
obligation to refund the members when it acquired the club.  Judge
Marra also ruled that plaintiffs had no obligation to pay dues or
fees to the club once it denied them access to the club.

The judgment reflected $4.85 million in refundable deposits from
the member class, plus interest.


TWO JINNS: Bid for Initial Settlement Approval Under Submission
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order in the lawsuit styled
Gayla Shelby, the Plaintiff v. Two JInns, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:15-cv-03794-AB-GJS (C.D. Cal.), taking Plaintiff's
motion for settlement approval of class action settlement
preliminary approval under submission.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eEm3o9TO

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian Robert Bacon
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St Ste 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367 7104
          Telephone: (888) 595 9111
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert W Hicks
          ROBERT W. HICKS & ASSOCIATES
          600 W Broadway, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 236 3403
          Facsimile: (619) 236 3413


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Arbitration in EATS Courier Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Daniels, writing for Law360, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc. on Jan. 31 asked a New York federal court to
arbitrate Fair Labor Standards Act claims in a putative class
action from bicycle couriers for its Uber EATS service, citing
language from an arbitration agreement.

Matthew Burgos and others say that Uber EATS and its precursor,
Uber RUSH -- which deliver food from restaurants to a customer's
door -- misclassified couriers as independent contractors and
don't pay them minimum wage, in violation of the FLSA.

But Uber on Jan. 31 said the couriers had already agreed to
individually arbitrate any claims arising out of their work for
the company, citing an arbitration provision the couriers accepted
before gaining access to the app that allows them to start
working.

"Because the parties entered into a valid contract requiring the
submission of any disputes arising out of plaintiffs' relationship
with defendants to be decided in arbitration on an individual
basis, and this dispute falls within the scope of that agreement,
this court should order plaintiffs to individually arbitrate their
claims against defendants, dismiss plaintiffs' claims, and strike
plaintiffs' class and collective allegations," the motion to
compel arbitration says.

The suit, filed in November, alleges a slew of labor violations,
including that Uber misclassifies couriers as independent
contractors because they aren't free from the company's control
and direction.  Plaintiffs' attorney Richard Garbarini said at the
time that he believed it is the first suit challenging Uber's
courier classification methods, though Uber has previously
litigated the independent contractor issue with drivers.

Mr. Burgos' complaint says that messengers meet all nine U.S.
Department of Labor indicators as to whether they are employees,
such as requirements to follow rules and accept assignments.
Couriers like Burgos were also told at training that they would be
"deactivated" if Uber found out they were working for another
service, according to the complaint.

Uber's motion to compel arbitration says that Mr. Burgos and the
other four named plaintiffs in the suit all accepted arbitration
agreements, including an operative agreement from August.  That
agreement includes an arbitration provision "which broadly
requires delivery partners, if they do not opt out, to
individually arbitrate all disputes arising out of or related to
the agreement or their relationship with Uber," the motion says.

While there is a way to opt out of the provision, the plaintiffs
have not, Uber added.

In asking the court to find in favor of arbitration, Uber pointed
to past cases in which it was sued.

"Federal courts around the nation, including the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, have all recently reached this same
conclusion when evaluating a similar arbitration provision in
cases brought against Uber," the Jan. 31 motion reads. "In each
case, the court enforced the arbitration provisions, and granted
Uber's motions to compel individual arbitration."

Uber declined to comment on Feb. 1.

The drivers are represented by Richard M. Garbarini of Garbarini
Fitzgerald PC.

Uber is represented by Andrew M. Spurchise --
aspurchise@littler.com -- and Kevin R. Vozzo -- kvozzo@littler.com
-- of Littler Mendelson PC.

The case is Matthew Burgos v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al., case
number 1:16-cv-08512, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Drivers' Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenblatt and Edvard Pettersson, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that Uber Technologies Inc. reached a settlement offering
its drivers an average of about a buck apiece to dispense with
alleged labor-code violations that their lawyer claimed might have
been worth billions of dollars.

The ride-hailing company, along with the drivers' lawyer, asked a
state judge in Los Angeles Feb. 1 to approve a $7.75 million
agreement to resolve claims stemming from its refusal to give
California drivers the protections and benefits of employees.  The
accord allows Uber to keep classifying the drivers as independent
contractors.

The claims by Steven Price, who sought to represent as many as 1.6
million California drivers in a class action, were brought under
the state's so-called bounty hunter law, which gives employees the
right to step into the shoes of the state labor secretary to bring
enforcement actions.  Under the 2004 Private Attorneys General
Act, or PAGA, the state keeps 75 percent of any penalties won.
The remaining 25 percent is a reward for the workers who bring the
case.  Thousands of such lawsuits have been filed in the past 12
years.

The Price case poses a special threat to Uber.  The company in
September won an appeals court ruling that potentially eviscerated
a more advanced class action in San Francisco federal court by
forcing the vast majority of 385,000 California and Massachusetts
drivers in the case to proceed through arbitration one at a time.
But PAGA claims, like those filed by Price in state court, can't
be shunted into arbitration.

Christopher Morosoff, a lawyer representing Price, said at a June
hearing in San Francisco that his case cited 17 labor code
violations, compared with just two claims -- tips and mileage --
in the federal case for which the PAGA penalties were estimated at
$1 billion by the state agency that oversees labor code
enforcement.

'Do the Math'

"Do the math there," he told U.S. District Judge Edward Chen at
the time.  "The numbers may be staggering, and they may be in the
billions, and you may not want to look at them, but they are
real."

In the Feb. 1 filing, Mr. Morosoff and attorneys for Uber urged
the Los Angeles judge to approve the accord, calling it a
"reasonable and fair compromise" and "the largest PAGA settlement
ever, exceeding all other known PAGA settlements by millions of
dollars."

"This settlement appropriately balances the objective of the PAGA
statute and the risks of litigation posed to each side, while
avoiding an unjust result," they wrote.
PAGA Penalties

After attorney fees and administration costs are deducted, the
agreement provides for about $1.7 million to paid to drivers and
earmarks about $2.9 million in PAGA penalties for California's
Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The amount each driver
gets will depend on how many weeks they have actively driven for
Uber.

An Uber spokeswoman said the company is pleased with the
settlement and looks forward to resolving other cases.
Mr. Morosoff didn't immediately respond to a call seeking comment.

Uber said in a court filing that the Price settlement would
resolve PAGA claims of drivers who used its app from July 8, 2013,
until the date a Los Angles judge signs off on the deal.

Court approval of the accord isn't a sure thing.  In the San
Francisco case, which would have resolved claims for tips and
mileage valued by the drivers' lawyer at $852 million, Judge Chen
rejected a $100 million settlement in August.  He said the $1
million allotted to resolve PAGA claims was inadequate in light of
those claims being valued at as much as $1 billion.
Overtime Claims

Shannon Liss-Riordan, the lawyer representing drivers in the San
Francisco case, was criticized by Morosoff, who said she folded
too easily to Uber in her settlement on minimum-wage and overtime
claims, which the deal valued at zero.

Ms. Liss-Riordan, complaining that she was left in the dark about
the Price settlement until it was first disclosed in November,
tried unsuccessfully to get Judge Chen to try to wrestle the PAGA
claims away from the Los Angeles case so she could pursue them in
San Francisco.  Judge Chen said in an order that he was reluctant
to interfere "with a state court's resolution of what is, after
all, a state law issue."

'Forum Shopping'

Ms. Liss-Riordan said the Price settlement is evidence of Uber's
"forum shopping," testing different courts to find the most
favorable outcome.

"It is looking for a judge who will approve a far smaller
settlement than I had last year, which the federal court declined
to approve," Ms. Liss-Riordan wrote in an e-mail.  "Now Uber is
trying to get a settlement approved in state court for a lower
amount for the PAGA claims than Judge Chen said he would not
approve, but without the drivers getting the benefit of the far
larger settlement that I was able to negotiate."

Charlotte Garden, a Seattle University associate law professor who
has followed the Uber litigation, called the settlement a
"bargain" for Uber, saying it appears to be proportionally smaller
than the sum than Chen signaled that he would have approved in the
San Francisco case.

The professor also said that if the Price settlement is approved,
it will advance the company's "divide and conquer" approach to
driver lawsuits.

It may reduce the threat of the San Francisco lawsuit to the
"nuisance value" of fighting potentially thousands of individual
drivers in arbitration, she said.  While that cost could still be
considerable because Uber has committed to covering the expenses
of arbitration, "it will almost certainly be less than a case with
a viable path towards litigating all the drivers' claims on an
aggregate basis," Ms. Garden said.

The Los Angeles case is Price v. Uber Technologies Inc., BC554512,
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County (Los Angeles).  The
San Francisco case is O'Connor v. Uber Technologies Inc., 13-cv-
03826, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San
Francisco).


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Launch Class Action in Ontario
---------------------------------------------------------
Sara Tatelman, writing for Benefits Canada, reports that drivers
who work for Uber Technologies Inc. in Ontario have launched a
class action lawsuit arguing the company has misclassified them as
independent contractors and should instead treat them as
employees.

According to the statement of claim, the plaintiffs are asking for
$200 million in damages, plus $2,000 for legal fees.  They're also
asking for reimbursement for any Canada Pension Plan and
employment insurance contributions they've made as independent
contractors that Uber should have made as their employer.  None of
the allegations have been proven in court.

The lawsuit followed Uber's move to "unilaterally" change the
terms for its Uber Eats drivers, lowering their compensation by 40
to 60 per cent, says Stephen Gillman --
stephen@stlawyers.ca -- a lawyer at Samfiru Tumarkin LLP in
Toronto who's representing the drivers.  "The drivers were forced
to agree to a contract, in some cases in the middle of an order,
that lowered their compensation."

The class action, which represents all Uber drivers who work or
have worked in Ontario since 2012, alleges "the duties performed
by the class members and the supervision and control imposed on
the class members by Uber creates an employment relationship with
Uber."  It notes Uber provides training, screens drivers, ensures
their vehicles meet specific requirements, suspends those whose
vehicles aren't up to par, sets prices and compensation and
handles any complaints about drivers, among other employer
responsibilities.

Because Uber has so much control over working conditions, drivers
should be considered employees not independent contractors, the
statement of claim argues.  As such, the plaintiffs allege Uber
must abide by Ontario's Employment Standards Act by paying the
minimum wage and providing overtime, vacation and public holiday
pay; advise drivers of their entitlement to those payments; and
accurately track their hours.

"In order to receive a livable wage, [chief plaintiff David]
Heller was required to work 40-50 hours per week without receiving
the minimum wage, contrary to his contractual terms," the
statement of claim alleges.  It also points out drivers are "low-
skilled employees under the direct control and supervision of the
defendants" who rely on Uber to inform them of their employee
status and pay eligibility.

In October 2016, the Central London Employment Tribunal in England
ruled Uber drivers are employees, not independent contractors.

"Drivers will have holiday pay, statutory sick pay and should be
paid the minimum amount for what their hours are if they're not
achieving the incomes that are acceptable under the mandate of the
law," Steve Garelick, branch secretary of professional drivers at
the GMB union in London, told Benefits Canada in November.

Similar lawsuits have emerged throughout the United States with
varying results, Mr. Gillman notes.  "We're confident [Canada's]
laws will support our position," he says.


UNITED STATES: Faces 40+ Lawsuits Over Trump Immigration Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that lawyers have tossed everything but the kitchen sink at
President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration.

More than 40 lawsuits have been filed since Trump first signed the
order on Jan. 27 suspending entry to the United States for
individuals from seven predominantly Muslim countries in the
Middle East and Africa.

The cases range from habeas corpus petitions on behalf of
travelers to class actions backed by immigration and civil rights
groups to suits that leverage the credibility -- and resources --
of state governments in Washington, Virginia, Massachusetts and
New York.  They assert violations of the U.S. Constitution and
statutes including the Immigration and Nationality Act and the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

What looks like legal chaos on the surface may have an upside for
advocates by establishing more avenues to a successful outcome.
With little active coordination, at least in the initial phases,
lawyers across the country have been testing the legal theories
that may get them past two main hurdles -- standing and the
reluctance of courts to second-guess executive branch decisions
related to national security.

Matt Adams, legal director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights
Project, which has partnered with organizations including the
American Civil Liberties Union on two class actions, said on
Feb. 2 that the flurry of activity is starting to coalesce.

"It's important for us to coordinate our efforts and see who's
already challenging what issues," Mr. Adams said.  "That being
said, it has happened so quickly, and so many people are
experiencing immediate harm, it's inevitable you'll have
overlapping lawsuits because you have attorneys across the country
trying to protect their clients."

The bulk of cases filed so far have been habeas corpus petitions,
brought over the weekend after immigrants were detained or
deported at U.S. airports.  Many of those have been voluntarily
dismissed, presumably because the petitioner has since been
released.

Other suits, brought by advocacy groups like the ACLU, the Council
on American-Islamic Relations and the American Immigration
Council, seek to represent a class of individuals who have been or
could be impacted from the order.  Framing their suits as class
actions allows advocates to obtain rulings with broader impact.
On Jan. 28, for example, U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly in the
Eastern District of New York granted an emergency motion to stay
removals as part of a class action brought by the ACLU.

At least five class actions have been filed, some involving the
same advocacy groups.  That's because so many people have been
affected, Mr. Adams said.

"The executive order is wreaking havoc in a lot of different
contexts," he said.  "It's not just one group of individuals, and
every group of individuals presents its own issues."

One of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project's class actions, for
instance, seeks to represent individuals whose visa applications
were suspended due to the order.

The major hurdle for class actions in the immigration context is
establishing that the lead plaintiffs behind the case have legal
standing to sue in federal courts, said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a
professor at Cornell Law School.

One tactic that's already being employed in several suits is
finding a U.S. citizen to sue on behalf of their loved ones,
instead of litigating directly on behalf of foreign nationals.

In a class action filed on Jan. 30 by three immigration groups,
the lead plaintiffs are two U.S. citizens and one lawful permanent
resident who live in Washington and California.  They are joined
in the case by their minor children, who are in the process of
getting an immigrant visa but live in one of the seven countries
identified in Trump's order.

U.S. citizens make better plaintiffs, acknowledged Mary Kenney,
senior staff attorney at the American Immigration Council.
"Certainly the U.S. citizen and LPR plaintiffs in the United
States have significant ties and will not have standing issues,"
Kenney said.  But she also insisted they have been harmed by the
order, which "is tearing families apart."

Plaintiffs lawyers also could point to the order as an "anti-
Muslim ban" in order to allege a policy common to all class
members, said Kevin Johnson, dean of the University of California,
Davis, School of Law.  Lawyers advanced a similar argument in a
class action against Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio
to demonstrate that his office racially profiled Latinos in its
patrols.

Many of the class actions challenging Trump's order use the term
"anti-Muslim ban" in their complaints. (Trump has insisted that
his order "is not a Muslim ban.")

In a case brought on Jan. 30 by the state of Washington, Attorney
General Bob Ferguson cited the numbers of employees at Microsoft,
Expedia and Amazon with temporary work visas who come from the
seven countries at issue in the order.  Raising the economic
impact of the order could be designed to overcome standing issues,
said Geoffrey Hoffman, director of the Immigration Clinic at the
University of Houston Law Center.

In a sense it's taking a lesson from the AGs who repeatedly
challenged actions from the Obama administration.

Attorneys general from 26 states overcame a similar standing
hurdle in their case against federal policies giving legal status
to 4 million immigrants.  "They alleged an economic connection to
the executive agency's actions to their citizens or residents in
their respective states," Mr. Hoffman said.  "So similarly here,
you're going to have a real connection also to the economic impact
of these executive actions on the state."

In a supplemental brief filed on Feb. 1, Mr. Ferguson cited Texas
v. United States in arguing that the state of Washington had
standing due to lost tax revenues and other costs.

Beyond standing, legal experts predict that the federal government
will assert a hard-to-penetrate national security defense.
Trump's order invokes the Immigration and Nationality Act's
provisions allowing the president to prohibit entry into the
United States of foreign nationals to protect U.S. interests. And
immigration falls under the plenary power doctrine, which holds
that the legislative and executive branches, not the courts, have
the power to regulate immigration.

"I could see the federal government saying, 'There's no room for
judicial review here,'" Mr. Johnson said.  "The doctrine is still
good law, and this may give the Supreme Court in the end a chance
to revisit this law."

But the powers of the president aren't unlimited.  Many of the
lawsuits cite other provisions of the Immigration and Nationality
Act designed to prevent discrimination in the issuance of visas,
plus numerous constitutional violations that could challenge the
president's powers.

"Even though the president has broad powers, that power is not
unlimited," Mr. Hoffman said.  "You have to keep in mind we still
have limitations: the First Amendment, due process, equal
protection, retroactivity -- a lot of issues that I think can be
brought to bear."


UNITED STATES: Settlement in "Greenwood" Suit Has Initial Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Federal Claims granted the plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement in the
case captioned ROSALIE GREENWOOD, et al., Individually and as
Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 10-15L (Fed.
Cl.).

The rails-to-trails case arises from the conversion of a railroad
corridor in Lawrence County, Arkansas to a recreational trail.
The action was brought on behalf of 53 landowners who collectively
own 78 parcels of land along the 6.70-mile corridor.

The United States and class counsel have reached an agreement
regarding the general terms of a settlement.  The proposed
settlement provides payments in connection with the alleged taking
of the plaintiffs' property for the creation of a trail.  Under
the settlement, class members would receive a total of
$1,025,595.00, of which $611,795.00 is principal for the value of
the land allegedly taken and $413,800.00 is interest as of August
31, 2016.  The proposed settlement does not include statutory
attorneys' fees or costs.

On December 1, 2016, class counsel filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement, approval of notice to class members
regarding the proposed class action settlement, and request to set
a date for public hearing under RCFC 23(e).  The government did
not oppose preliminary approval of the class action settlement but
asked the Court to adopt the government's proposed notice plan and
forms.

After a review of the parties' proposed notice plans and forms,
the Court approved the government's version of the notice and
forms with the exception of references to the proposed website and
the references to class counsel's request for contingent fees on
the grounds that the Court understands that class counsel is not
seeking fees under the "common fund" doctrine.  In addition, the
approved notice adopts the parties' agreed-upon proposal that the
Court conduct the fairness hearing telephonically with class
counsel present at a location that is convenient to class members
who wish to participate in person.

The Court scheduled a fairness hearing to take place on March 24,
2017 at 2:00 PM eastern time.  The fairness hearing shall be held
over the phone.

A full-text copy of the Court's January 25, 2017 order is
available at https://is.gd/12HIOt from Leagle.com.

ROSALIE GREENWOOD, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald
-- wald@swm.legal -- Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

USA, Defendant, represented by Sean Christian Duffy, U.S.
Department of Justice.


UNITED STATES: Northwest Immigrants Rights Project Files Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Graf, writing for KING 5, reports that the Northwest
Immigrant Rights Project filed a federal class-action lawsuit
challenging President Trump's immigration order on behalf of
several immigrant families.

Among the plaintiffs is Reema Dahman, who came to Seattle from
Syria back in 2012.  She's now a permanent, lawful resident of the
United States.  But Reema says her sixteen-year-old son is now
stranded in the war-torn country, despite the fact that Reema had
already successfully filed a visa petition on her son's behalf.

"When the executive order was issued, that changed everything,"
said Dahman, speaking to KING 5 with the help of a translator.

The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project has been working around the
clock to help families like Reema's, ever since the executive
order that suspended immigration from seven predominantly Muslim
countries.  The order also includes an indefinite ban of refugees
from Syria.

"In the beginning I was in disbelief, I could not believe this
would go through, I thought there was no way a President would do
that," said Dahman.

The class-action lawsuit filed on Jan. 30 asks a federal judge to
intervene so that families are not torn apart.

"We are getting hundreds and hundreds of calls from from
individuals seeking help," said Matt Adams, the legal director of
The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project.

Adams said Reema's sixteen-year-old son was in the final stages of
the process needed to secure his visa.  He was waiting for his
immigrant visa interview to be scheduled, according to court
documents.

"So Reema is a lawful permanent resident, she immigrated through
her U.S. citizen spouse," said Adams.  "But since he was not the
biological father of her sixteen-year-old son, in the process that
they initially filed, he had not filed for that child.  And so
when Reema came here and became a lawful permanent resident, she
filed for her son.  The visa petition was approved, so then they
followed through and submitted the application to the consulate to
finish the process, and now all of a sudden the announcement comes
out that all visa applications are immediately suspended from
Syria.

For Reema, it's heartbreaking news.  She held back tears while
speaking about her son, because she worries about his safety in
Syria.

"I have hope, because this is America," she said.

KING 5 asked whether she would consider going back to Syria to be
with her son, who is now living with his grandmother.  The problem
is that Reema has two other sons who are just eight and nine years
old -- and they are already here in Seattle.

She says she wouldn't want to bring them back to a war zone as
well.

The class-action lawsuit calls President Trump's immigration order
unlawful and discriminatory.  The lawsuit specifically asks the
courts to stop the part of the order that impacts people who have
already gone through the "lengthy and rigorous immigrant visa
process", saying a judge needs to intervene in order to protect
the integrity of the United States' immigrant visa process

"I think what stands out the most is that this order is in blatant
disregard of the immigration laws and the constitution," said
Adams.  "And that's what this lawsuit is all about, forcing the
President to back down and basically revoke his unlawful order."

The class-action lawsuit comes on the heels of a separate federal
suit filed by Washington state's attorney general.

The Trump administration has defended the immigration order,
saying it's about keeping bad people with bad intentions out of
the United States.


US METALS: Carteret Residents File Class Action Over Contaminants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Muscavage, writing for myCentralJersey.com, reports that
five years after a metal smelting company agreed to investigate
and clean up potential contamination in the yards of nearby homes,
some borough residents began receiving letters from the company
informing them that their properties contain contaminants above
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's clean-up and
action levels.

Some Carteret residents have entered into a class-action lawsuit,
which was filed on Jan. 30 and has a class area defined as several
thousand properties, alleging that U.S. Metal Refining Company,
Amax Realty and Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold failed to recognize
the "true nature and extent" of the contaminants or properly
notify residents of the extent of the contaminants.

"This type of pollution can have a crushing blow on property
value. People are invested in their homes and that loss of value
should be reimbursed by the polluter," said Steven German,
attorney for the plaintiffs.  "People are worried about their
health, they're worried about their children's health.  They hear
about Flint, and they read about lead paint, and they hear all the
terrible things that lead can do to children."

According to the letters sent out by U.S. Metal Refining Company,
arsenic and lead both exceeded the clean-up levels for soil
established by the NJDEP.  In one letter, three tests showed
arsenic at a quantity above the clean-up level of 19 parts per
million; the highest level in the tests was more than 30 parts per
million.

The letter also showed tests exceeding the clean-up level of lead
of 400 parts per million.  One test showed a property's lead
levels to be over 1,500 parts per million -- more than three times
higher than the clean-up level established by the DEP.

The letter sent to residents by U.S. Metals Refining Company
recommended that the residents allow its soil project to remove
the contaminated yard soil in accordance to DEP requirements.

The company said they will "replace the yard soil removed with
clean soil and will restore affected landscaping."  It also said
the project will come at no cost to the taxpayers, but the company
did not admit any wrongdoing in the letter.

On Jan. 31, Mayor Daniel Reiman announced to area residents that
U.S. Metals Refining Company will begin testing additional
properties within the borough.  The soil testing will determine
whether the environmental impacts from the company's former
smelting operations extend further than originally believed by the
company, according to his statement.

"U.S. Metals has acknowledged that their past operation in
Carteret has impacted soil around their former plant. They will
expand the scope of their investigation based upon test results
from previous soil samples that were taken from properties within
the original sample area," Mr. Reiman said.  "The results have
caused them to question whether their original efforts were
comprehensive enough.

"We have insisted all along that they conduct a complete and
thorough environmental impact investigation and to clean-up any
contamination caused by their former operations and they are now
beginning to do that."

In 2012, Carteret made an agreement with the owner of metals-
refining factory to ensure the company investigates and cleans up
potential contamination in the yards of nearby homes and other
areas.  The agreement came after Carteret filed a required notice
of its intent to sue the owners of the former U.S. Metals Refining
Company to ensure the company investigated toxic metal
contamination.

The initial round of testing included about 60 properties east of
Roosevelt Avenue near Carteret's southeastern border with
Woodbridge, according to the statement.

U.S. Metals Refining Company operated a copper and fine metals
smelting facility along the Arthur Kill from 1906 until 1986 when
it was closed, according to Mr. Reiman's letter.  The company was
eventually acquired by Freeport-McMoRan Inc. As the successor
company of U.S. Metals, Freeport-McMoRan is still liable for the
costs associated with the investigation and remediation, according
to Mr. Reiman.

At the time of the agreement, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold
issued a statement reported by USA TODAY that the company is
pleased to have reached the agreement "and will now be able to
focus our attention on the Carteret soil testing and replacement
program."

Amax Realty, the third defendant in the class-action lawsuit,
owned or operated a portion of the site associated to the smelting
contaminants, according to the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against U.S. Metals Refining Company
and the other entities claim that they are suffering from fear of
adverse health effects, including cancer, issues with childhood
physical, mental and cognitive development and other serious
illnesses, as a result of the contaminants from the refining
companies.


VASCULAR SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Teleflex Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
Sam Schaust, writing for TwinCities Business, reports that
Vascular Solutions shareholder Paul Parshall is suing the Maple
Grove-based company claiming it made a poor deal when it agreed to
be purchased by Teleflex for $1 billion.

In documents filed on Feb. 1 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, Mr. Parshall called the $56-per-share deal
"inadequate," adding that it was preferential to Vascular
Solutions' executive team, including CEO Howard Root who is said
to receive over $8 million if the acquisition is completed.

When the acquisition was announced in December, Mr. Root noted one
reason for selling Vascular Solutions was over concern of falling
victim to another federal government investigation.  "I am not
willing to assume much longer the personal risk associated with
being the CEO of a public, medical-device company," he said.

After several years in court and $25 million spent fighting the
charges, Vascular Solutions was cleared in February 2016 of
alleged "off-label" promotions of its products.  Mr. Root
afterward called the entire process "obscene" and wrote a book
about his experience.

Concerning the recent lawsuit, Mr. Root told TCB, "This type of
lawsuit is filed in virtually every sale of a public company
transaction. It has no merit and we'll prove it."

Mr. Parshall is seeking class action certification with the hope
of stopping the proposed acquisition. (Vascular Solutions would be
compelled to pay Teleflex a $35 million termination fee if the
deal falls through.)

Citing Vascular Solutions' double-digit year-over-year sales
growth in recent quarters, the plaintiff believes "the intrinsic
value of the company is materially in excess" of the $1 billion
offer.

To back up his claim, Mr. Parshall said Vascular Solutions
violated the Securities Exchange Act by omitting material
information from the proxy statement it filed with the SEC.  By
not including information, such as capital expenditures, taxes,
and stock-based compensation in the filing, Mr. Parshall claimed
the proxy statement is rendered as "false and misleading."

Moreover, the plaintiff said the company and its shareholders
should be willing to solicit other, potentially better, offers,
court filings indicate.

"It's become increasingly common for lawsuits to be brought
whenever there is a significant acquisition, either against the
acquiring company or the acquired company," said David Pearson --
dpearson@winthrop.com -- shareholder at Minneapolis-based law firm
Winthrop and Weinstine. "Typically these lawsuits are
unsuccessful.  The courts give a significant amount of deference
to boards of directors and management in making decisions
regarding mergers and acquisitions.  It's a fairly high standard
that has to be met in order to block a proposed merger
acquisition, so usually these cases are either dismissed because
they have no merit or the parties reach some type of settlement."

Vascular Solutions said the plaintiff's claims are "without merit"
in an SEC filing on Feb. 1.

Mr. Parshall has a history of suing companies that he owns shares
in.  He has filed at least 22 cases against companies dating back
to 1993.  In 1996, he was permanently enjoined by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah for violations against the
Securities Act.

In addition to termination of the deal, Mr. Parshall is seeking an
unspecified amount in damages, as well as a "reasonable allowance"
to cover legal fees.


VISTA OUTDOOR: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Vista Outdoor Inc. securities between August 11, 2016 and
January 13, 2017.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements as well as
failed to disclose material, adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, including that the Company
was experiencing revenue and gross margin declines and that the
Company would begin the impairment assessment for its Outdoor
Products segment's reporting units in the third quarter of 2017.

On January 12, 2017, Vista disclosed that it expects a material
asset impairment charge of approximately $400 - $450 million due
to its Hunting and Shooting Accessories reporting unit in the
third quarter of its fiscal year 2017. On this news, Vista shares
declined $8.21 per share to close at $29.58 on January 12, 2017.

On January 13, 2017, Vista disclosed that the President of its
Outdoor Products segment, which includes the Hunting and Shooting
Accessories unit, resigned from his position. On this news, Vista
shares declined $0.88 per share to close at $28.70 on January 13,
2017.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Vista Outdoor securities
during the Class Period and suffered a loss or continue to hold
shares purchased prior to the Class Period, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact J. Brandon Walker, Esq.
by email at -- investigations@bespc.com --, or telephone at (212)
355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm,
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For
additional information concerning the Vista Outdoor lawsuit,
please go to www.bespc.com/vista-outdoor-inc


VOLKSWAGEN: Resists Granting Settlement to EU Car Owners
--------------------------------------------------------
Patrick McGee at Financial Times reports when Volkswagen pleaded
guilty in January to criminal charges in the US over the German
carmaker's diesel emissions scandal, the company's great hope was
that it would be able to move on and focus on an ambitious
strategy to become a leader in electric vehicles by 2025.

But in Europe, where almost 9m of the 11m VW diesel cars equipped
with test-cheating software were sold, consumer litigation is just
beginning.

Tens of thousands of VW car owners are demanding compensation --
and thereby to be treated in the same manner as their counterparts
in North America, where the scandal has cost the company more than
$20bn. The latest part of this European effort will take place on
Monday, when a London-based court holds a preliminary hearing on a
case brought on behalf of more than 20,000 UK owners of VW cars.

However, having offered compensation and vehicle buybacks to US
car owners caught up in the emissions affair, VW is strongly
resisting calls by the European Commission and some other EU
politicians for similar steps in Europe. And differences between
US and EU legal systems mean the company is unlikely in Europe to
face anything like the $21bn of scandal-related expenses it has
run up in North America.

In the US, the case against VW was close to overwhelming. In
September 2015 VW admitted it had installed illegal software
dubbed a defeat device in about 500,000 diesel cars, which served
to understate emissions of harmful nitrogen oxides in official
tests.

The Washington-based Environmental Protection Agency sued VW,
while hundreds of legal complaints by aggrieved US car owners were
turned into one large case that amounted to a de facto class
action lawsuit. A court in California overseeing this civil
litigation demanded VW get the affected vehicles off the road as
soon as possible, and because the company had no viable fix for
them it was forced to offer a car buyback to about 480,000 owners
of 2-litre diesel vehicles. In addition, car owners were offered
at least $5,100 each.

But in Europe the legal position is far more nuanced. VW is in the
peculiar position of having admitted to installing cheat software
in almost 9m diesel cars -- while at the same time maintaining the
technology did not violate EU laws.

The problem for any lawyer fighting for damages is that, even
though VW's cheat software falls within the colloquial meaning of
an illegal defeat device -- anything intended to circumvent a
vehicle emissions test -- it is less clear the technology breaches
the EU's technical definition.

The applicable EU laws contained in a 2007 regulation defining
illegal defeat devices refer to any element of design which alters
"any part of the emission control system? . . . [during] normal
vehicle operation and use".

One person familiar with VW's legal strategy, who declined to be
identified, said the company's software was an "inter-engine
measure".

In other words, the technology affected nitrous oxide (NOx)
discharges before they reached the emission control system.
Furthermore, the software was activated in test conditions in a
laboratory, not during "normal" use on the road.

Meanwhile, while VW concedes its diesel cars could not pass strict
US NOx emissions tests without cheating, the company argues that
its European vehicles could in fact pass EU equivalents, which are
less onerous.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Reaches Settlement with FTC in Emissions Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement on Feb. 1 that
requires Volkswagen Group of America to fully compensate consumers
who purchased 3.0-liter TDI diesel vehicles through a combination
of repairs, additional monetary compensation, and buybacks for
certain models.

Under the federal court order, owners of older vehicles (model
years 2009-2012) will be able to sell their car back to Volkswagen
at favorable prices and obtain full compensation for their losses.
Consumers are eligible to receive approximately $26,000 to $58,000
for a buyback, depending on the model, mileage, and trim of the
car.  These owners can also opt to keep their cars and receive an
emissions modification that would improve their vehicle's
emissions, if a modification is approved by the Environmental
Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board.
Consumers receiving an emissions modification will also receive
monetary compensation.

For owners and lessees of newer vehicles (model years 2013-2016)
Volkswagen is expected to obtain regulatory approval for an
emissions repair that brings the cars into full compliance with
originally certified emission standards and does not materially
reduce the performance of the vehicle.  If Volkswagen obtains EPA
and CARB approval within the timeframe in the FTC Order, consumers
will receive this repair and additional monetary compensation
ranging from approximately $8,500 to $17,600.  This means
consumers with newer vehicles will receive the car they thought
they purchased -- plus a substantial additional payment.  If an
emissions repair is not available under the timeframe in the FTC
order, then Volkswagen must offer to buy back those models and
provide lease terminations.

Certain consumers who leased an affected vehicle are eligible for
substantial compensation.  Options for lessees vary based on make,
model, model year, and the availability of approved emissions
modifications or repairs.  Certain owners who sold their TDI
vehicles after the Volkswagen defeat device issue became public
are also eligible for compensation.

The order will return more than a billion dollars to consumers,
with the total amount depending on future events.  If no emissions
repair is approved and if the company must therefore offer
buybacks for all 3.0-liter TDI models, Volkswagen may have to pay
as much as the full $4 billion judgment reflected in the order.
If an emissions repair is approved, the Commission expects
consumers to receive in excess of $1.25 billion from the 3.0-liter
vehicle settlement.  This amount includes a contribution from
Bosch, which manufactured the defeat device. The Commission
previously obtained a $10 billion judgment to compensate the
larger group of consumers who had 2.0-liter TDI Volkswagen cars.
Under the FTC settlement, Volkswagen also will pay the cost of
administering the entire settlement program, including vehicle
repairs, notifications, and other logistics.

The FTC order also includes generous loan forgiveness provisions
for consumers eligible for buybacks, additional limited warranties
and lemon law-type protections for consumers eligible to receive
emissions modifications or repairs, special protections for those
serving in the armed forces, and special protections for consumers
in rural areas who may be far from the nearest dealer.  The order
also requires an independent, court-appointed claims supervisor to
monitor Volkswagen's compliance with stringent claims process
deadlines.

The FTC sued Volkswagen in March, charging that the company
deceived consumers with its advertising campaign used to promote
its supposedly "Clean Diesel" Volkswagens and Audis, which falsely
claimed that the cars were low-emission, environmentally friendly,
met emissions standards, and would maintain a high resale value.

This order completes the FTC's case against Volkswagen by ensuring
that all consumers who purchased a TDI diesel engine vehicle will
be fully compensated for their losses.  In a companion matter,
hundreds of private actions have submitted a proposed class action
settlement consistent with the FTC's order. A related settlement
with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) resolves the Clean Air Act violations those agencies
alleged.

Consumers can determine if they are eligible for compensation, and
if so for how much at VWCourtSettlement.com and
AudiCourtSettlement.com.  They can also use these websites to
submit claims, make appointments, and receive updates. Monetary
relief will become available when the DOJ/EPA and private
settlements become final.

The Commission vote approving the proposed stipulated order was 3-
0. It is subject to court approval.  The FTC filed the proposed
stipulated order in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

NOTE: Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and
signed by the District Court judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition, and
protect and educate consumers.  You can learn more about consumer
topics and file a consumer complaint online or by calling 1-877-
FTC-HELP (382-4357).


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Second Class Action in UK Over Emissions
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Kirwan, writing for MotorTrader.com, reports that Volkswagen
is facing another group action in the UK over the emissions issue.

It was filed by Car Emissions Lawyers in the High Court in January
2016.

It followed another group action filed by Harcus Sinclair UK, also
in January.

Car Emissions Lawyers said it was using the Consumer Protection
from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 to try and secure claimants
discounts on the purchase price of affected Volkswagen, SEAT,
Skoda and Audi vehicles.

It said the legislation provided consumers with the right to
discounts of up to 100% on the value of purchases that were made
based on misleading practices.

To be eligible it said claimants must have purchased or made
payments towards the vehicles after the 1 October, 2014.

Car Emissions Lawyers said it represents 7,000 claimants who have
not been offered compensation.

Aman Johal, founder of Car Emissions Lawyers said: "The affected
cars were only able to be sold in the United Kingdom due to the
presence of defeat devices, and a number of our clients claim that
the fix offered by Volkswagen in respect of the defective vehicles
often causes other issues, including a decline in performance and
fuel efficiency."

The action was filed with the High Court in January 2016, and is
being brought by Aman Johal in conjunction with Barristers Andrew
Onslow QC of 3 Verulam Buildings and Tom Goodhead of 9 Gough
Square. This action is being supported by Hausfeld LLP.


WAL-MART STORES: "Ridgeway" Plaintiffs Get $5+ MM in Restitution
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Illston granted in part and denied, in part, the
plaintiff's post-trial motion in the case captioned CHARLES
RIDGEWAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORES INC., Defendant,
Case No. 08-cv-05221-SI (N.D. Cal.).  Judge Illston:

     (1) granted the plaintiffs' request for restitution under
         California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) in the amount
         of $5,861,147.00;

     (2) denied the plaintiffs' request for liquidated damages
         under California Labor Code section 1194.2; and

     (3) denied the plaintiffs' request for civil penalties under
         Labor Code section 1197.1.

The plaintiffs are truck drivers in California previously employed
by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for some period of time between 1993 and
the present.

The plaintiffs previously went to trial on their minimum wage
claims, alleging that Wal-Mart violated California minimum wage
law by failing to pay class members the minimum wage for 11 tasks.
On November 23, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in plaintiffs'
favor on four of the 11 tasks at issue, finding that class members
were paid less than the minimum wage by Wal-Mart for some or all
hours worked for: performing pre-trip inspections, performing
post-trip inspections, taking 10-minute rest breaks, and taking
10-hour layovers.  The jury accepted the damages calculations set
forth by plaintiffs' expert witness Dr. G. Michael Phillips and
awarded damages to the class.  The jury also found that Wal-Mart
intentionally failed to pay minimum wage to class members in any
pay period from October 10, 2007, to October 15, 2015.

On February 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on their UCL claim.  The plaintiffs sought restitution
under the UCL for October 10, 2004, through October 9, 2005, in
the amount of at least $5,861,148.

Judge Illston found that Wal-Mart's opposition, stating that the
evidence does not support the plaintiffs' request for restitution,
merely forwarded arguments that Wal-Mart made at trial and that
the jury rejected.  As with the jury, the judge also decided to
adopt the figures set forth by Dr. Phillips at trial where he
testified to the following figures totaling minimum wage
violations as to class members from October 10, 2004, through
October 9, 2005:

     Pre-trip inspections: $350,157
     Post-trip inspections: $350,157
     10-minute rest breaks: $466,528
     10-hour layovers: $4,694,305

Thus, following the jury's verdict, Judge Illston awarded
restitution to the class for a total of $5,861,147.

The plaintiffs also argued that class members are entitled to
$54,604,181 in liquidated damages under California Labor Code
section 1194.2.  Judge Illston, howerver, found that Wal-Mart
presented evidence at trial demonstrating that it can meet the
requirements of either good faith or a reasonable belief under
subsection (b) of the statute.  The judge thus declined to impose
liquidated damages.

Finally, the plaintiffs sought civil penalties in the amount of
$25,698,300, pursuant to California Labor Code section 1197.1.
Wal-Mart argued that the plaintiffs are not entitled to penalties
because section 1197.1 does not provide a private right of action.

Judge Illston found that Wal-Mart is correct that the plaintiffs
case may not recover the penalties described in section 1197.1.
The judge found that Labor Code section 1197.1 does not state that
the prescribed penalties accrue directly to the employee.  To the
contrary, several provisions in the statute refer to remedies
other than the civil penalty that accrue to the employee.  The
judge pointed out that the fact that the legislature specified
within section 1197.1 which remedies are payable to the employee,
but did not include the penalties at issue here, indicates that
the legislature did not intend these penalties to be paid to the
employee, as the plaintiffs suggested.  The judge explained that
an employee may enforce section 1197.1 through a representative
action under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004
(PAGA).  The PAGA  requires that, prior to initiating a civil
lawsuit, the employee must have complied with various notice and
administrative requirements.  The judge found that the plaintiffs
have not done so.

A full-text copy of Judge Illston's January 25, 2017 order is
available at https://is.gd/ySUdYw from Leagle.com.

Charles Ridgway, Jaime Famoso, Joshua Harold, Richard Byers, Dan
Thatcher, Nino Pagtama, Farris Day, Karl Merhoff, Michael Krohn,
Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Butler Jones, Esq.,
Wagner & Jones, Jacob Mitchell Weisberg, Law Offices of Jacob M.
Weisberg, Daniel Myers Kopfman, Law Offices of Wagner Jones,
Lawrence Mark Artenian, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP,
Nicholas John Paul Wagner, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones, Paul
Carter Mullen, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Russel David
Myrick, RDM Legal Group, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin &
Saltzman & Stephen Patrick O'Dell, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Willie Franklin, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Butler Jones,
Esq., Wagner & Jones, Daniel Myers Kopfman, Law Offices of Wagner
Jones, Lawrence Mark Artenian, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP,
Nicholas John Paul Wagner, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones, Paul
Carter Mullen, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Russel David
Myrick, RDM Legal Group, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin &
Saltzman & Stephen Patrick O'Dell, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Time Opitz, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Butler Jones, Esq.,
Wagner & Jones, Jacob Mitchell Weisberg, Law Offices of Jacob M.
Weisberg, Daniel Myers Kopfman, Law Offices of Wagner Jones,
Lawrence Mark Artenian, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Paul
Carter Mullen, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones LLP, Russel David
Myrick, RDM Legal Group, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin &
Saltzman & Stephen Patrick O'Dell, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Defendant, represented by Catherine A.
Conway -- cconway@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
George Charles Nierlich, III -- gnierlich@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Julian Wing-Kai Poon -- jpoon@gibsondunn.com
-- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Adam Carl Smedstad --
asmedstad@scopelitis.com -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson &
Feary, P.C., pro hac vice, Angela Yue-Man Poon --
apoon@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn and Crutcaher LLP, Blaine H.
Evanson -- bevanson@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
LLP, Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr. -- cmcnatt@scopelitis.com --
Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary, LLP, James H. Hanson --
jhanson@scopelitis.com -- Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson,
Jenna Musselman Yott -- jyott@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and
Crutcher, Jesse A. Cripps, Jr. -- jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Michael Li-Ming Wong -- mwong@gibsondunn.com
-- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Rachel S. Brass --
rbrass@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Scott Alan
Edelman -- sedelman@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP &
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutros@gibsondunn.com -- Attorney
at Law.


WALT DISNEY: Settles Animators' Anti-Poaching Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Miller, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that
Walt Disney Co. has agreed to pay $100 million to settle a long-
running lawsuit brought by animators and visual effects workers
who alleged that several Hollywood companies had adhered to an
anti-poaching pact that kept pay down.

Burbank-based Disney, whose subsidiaries Pixar Animation Studios
and Lucasfilm were also named in the class-action case, was the
last entertainment company to agree to settle the dispute.

Defendants including DreamWorks Animation, Sony Pictures Animation
and 20th Century Fox's Blue Sky Studios agreed to settlements last
year.  In all, the deals would total about $170 million for the
plaintiffs.

The class-action lawsuit was filed by former DreamWorks Animation
artist Robert Nitsch Jr. in September 2014.  The complaint, lodged
in U.S. District Court in San Jose, alleged visual effects and
animation companies "conspired to systematically suppress the
wages and salaries of those who they claim to prize as their
greatest assets -- their own workers."

The complaint alleged that the practice began in the 1980s when
Pixar and Lucasfilm agreed to an anti-poaching pact (before they
were owned by Disney), whereby the companies agreed to not "cold
call" each other's employees.

The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount of money including
compensatory damages and legal costs, plus a permanent injunction
to prohibit anti-poaching agreements.

Disney's proposed settlement, filed on Jan. 31, must be approved
by U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh.  The agreement, which includes
Pixar, Lucasfilm and another Disney subsidiary, Two Pic MC, would
be the largest of any of the defendants' settlements.

The class was certified by Koh in May; it totaled more than 10,000
people, according to a court filing at the time.

"We achieved a recovery for the class that we think is substantial
and fair," said attorney Steven G. Sklaver --
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com -- of Susman Godfrey, who represented
the plaintiffs along with lawyers from Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.  "This is a conspiracy that
involved suppressing compensation for employees all because it was
viewed to be a cost that the companies didn't want to incur."

Disney did not respond to requests for comment.

The lawsuit was filed following a U.S. Department of Justice
investigation into anti-poaching tactics used by companies
including Pixar, Apple, Google and Intel.  The companies settled
with the Department of Justice in 2010, agreeing to a prohibition
against engaging in anticompetitive no-solicitation agreements.

After the Department of Justice's probe ended, those companies and
others -- including Lucasfilm -- faced a separate class-action
lawsuit over poaching claims that was brought by software
engineers in 2012.  That case, also overseen by Judge Koh, was
settled in 2015.


WELLS FARGO: "Layog" Labor Lawsuit Transferred to N.J. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned CHRYSTIANE LAYOG, on individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, vs. WELLS
FARGO, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00413, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, and assigned Case Number 3:16-cv-02011.

The case alleges failure to pay overtime under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, failure to pay wages and overtime under the Labor
Code, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest
periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to pay all wages due twice monthly, failure to pay wages
upon termination of employment, and unlawful competition and
unlawful business practices.  Plaintiff was a teller for
Defendant.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges, that Defendant
WELLS FARGO is, and at all times mentioned herein was, an unknown
business entity with many branches located throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
     Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
     QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
     22974 El Toro Road Suite 100
     Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
     Phone: (949) 458-9675
     Fax: (949) 458-9679
     E-mail: req@quintlaw.com
             abl@quintlaw.com

        - and -

     David R. Markham, ESQ.
     THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
     750 B Street, Suite 1920
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 399-3995
     Fax: (619) 615-2067
     E-mail: mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com


WIRTZ REALTY: "Casarez" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled EDUARDO CAZAREZ, on behalf of himself, and
all other plaintiffs similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WIRTZ
REALTY CORPORATION, d/b/a WIRTZ RESIDENTIAL, d/b/a IVANHOE
NURSERY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06814 (N.D. Ill.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order:

   a. certifying and approving a class;

   b. approving the Settlement Agreement;

   c. approving the Notice of Proposed Settlement and Claim and
      Consent Form; and

   d. providing for other relief this Court deems appropriate.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yqhPwLzz

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), and is predicated on
Defendant's alleged failure to (a) fully pay Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees overtime compensation during the
three years prior to filing of suit; and (b) to compensate
Plaintiff and the Collective Members for work allegedly performed
off-the-clock. The Plaintiff and the Collective Members were
laborers employed by Defendant's tree nursery. The total number of
the Collective Members is 21, which represents the entirety of
Defendant's laborer employees during the three-year time period.
Promptly after service of the Complaint, Defendant acknowledged
overtime compensation was inadvertently not calculated using a
seven-day work week, and the Parties worked together to
recalculate overtime compensation due to Plaintiff and the
Collective Members. Defendant has disputed, and continues to
dispute, the allegation that Plaintiff, or the Collective Members
were required to work "off-the- clock" without compensation.
However, after extensive meetings and arm's length negotiations,
in the interest of reaching an amicable resolution without the
burdens, risks and expenses of protracted litigation, the Parties
have agreed to a settlement of all claims, including the alleged
off-the-clock claim, subject to this Court's approval.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq.
          FARMWORKER & LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
          33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900
          Chicago IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 784 3541

               - and -

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 840
          Chicago, IL, 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853 1450

The Defendant is represented by:

          Earl E. Farkas, Esq.
          GOZDECKI, DEL GIUDICE
          FARKAS & BROCATO LLP
          One East Wacker, Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 782 5010


* Ogletree Deakins Attorneys Review Gorsuch Arbitration Opinions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Chapman Jr. and Christopher Murray, Esq., of Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, in an article for Law360, report that on
Jan. 31, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch
of the Tenth Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As discussed in their article, "Supreme Court Jumps Into Class
Action Waiver Fight," the high court recently announced it will
consider this term whether the National Labor Relations Board can
ban class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements
under the National Labor Relations Act, or whether such waivers
are protected under the Federal Arbitration Act.  The current
eight-member court faces the real risk of ending up in a 4-4 tie
on this critical question, leaving it unresolved and the courts of
appeals split.

Judge Gorsuch, assuming he is confirmed and participates in these
cases now pending before the Supreme Court, could cast the
deciding vote and break the five-year-old deadlock between most
courts and the NLRB on the contentious class action waiver issue.

Although Messrs. Chapman and Murray recognize "past performance is
not necessarily indicative of future results," they reviewed Judge
Gorsuch's opinions touching on arbitration and related matters to
try to discern which way he might lean.  Here are some highlights.

In one case -- Genberg v. Porter, 566 F. App'x 719 (10th Cir.
2014) -- Judge Gorsuch authored an opinion rejecting an employee's
attempt to force his former employer's senior managers, board
members and outside counsel to arbitrate his wrongful termination
claims against them.  Judge Gorsuch explained these individuals
were not signatories to the plaintiff's arbitration agreement with
his employer and agreed with a prior court decision that an
arbitration agreement can "be invoked only by a signatory of the
agreement, and only against another signatory."  Although Genberg
didn't involve class action issues, Judge Gorsuch's reasoning
would be an impediment to class arbitration, which often seeks to
include individuals in an arbitration who aren't parties to the
underlying arbitration agreement.  Judge Gorsuch's literal reading
of arbitration agreements is consistent with employers' attempts
to enforce class action waiver bans in those agreements.

Reflecting similar reasoning, Judge Gorsuch dissented in another
case involving arbitration -- Ragab v. Howard, 841 F.3d 1134 (10th
Cir. 2016).  There, the court's majority refused to compel
arbitration because the parties had entered not one but six
different arbitration agreements containing provisions the
majority found were in conflict and irreconcilable.  The majority
concluded the parties never had a meeting of the minds regarding
arbitration so no enforceable agreement existed.  Judge Gorsuch
disagreed.  He concluded the parties clearly intended to
arbitrate, even if some of the nonessential details regarding how
the arbitration would be carried out remained up in the air.
"Because the plaintiff asked for and received assent to three
arbitration clauses he drafted and signed three others, all in a
commercial setting and while represented by counsel, I just don't
see how he can now seriously claim that he never intended to
arbitrate -- or how we might rightly rescue him from the
consequences of his choice."  In his dissent, Judge Gorsuch
emphasized the FAA's requirement that arbitration agreements be
treated just like other contracts. This is a critical line of
reasoning used by employers in defending class action waivers in
employment arbitration agreements.

In another case -- Howard v. Ferrellgas Partners LP, 748 F.3d 975
(10th Cir. 2014) -- Judge Gorsuch wrote an opinion chastising the
parties and the district court for failing to move quickly to
determine whether the parties had agreed to arbitrate.  After the
defendant moved to compel arbitration, the district court allowed
over 18 months of discovery and extensive motions practice on the
threshold issue of whether an arbitration agreement existed.  At
the conclusion of this drawn-out process, the district court
denied the motion to compel, finding disputed facts made it
unclear whether an agreement to arbitrate was formed. Judge
Gorsuch criticized the district court for failing to conduct a
summary trial as required by the FAA to resolve these fact
disputes promptly.  "The object [under the FAA] is always to
decide quickly -- summarily -- the proper venue for the case,
whether it be the courtroom or the conference room, so the parties
can get on with the merits of their dispute." Significantly, Judge
Gorsuch embraced the view that one purpose of the FAA is to foster
expedient dispute resolution.  That presumption underlies several
of the Supreme Court's more recent decisions approving class
action waivers in arbitration agreements outside the employment
context.  In those cases, the Supreme Court reasoned that the FAA
presumes arbitration will be bilateral since such arbitration is
far quicker and less complicated than class arbitration.

Also of note is Judge Gorsuch's dissent in N.L.R.B. v. Community
Health Services, 812 F.3d 768 (10th Cir. 2016).  That case did not
involve arbitration under the FAA, but it did raise questions
about the scope of the NLRB's authority in issuing new rules and
the limits of courts' obligation to defer to the NLRB.  In
Community Health Services, the Tenth Circuit reviewed a board
decision to award certain employees full backpay as a result of an
improper reduction in their hours without deducting the amount of
income those employees' earned from secondary employment. This was
a significant change in the board's approach.  It was well
established in the board's prior cases involving unlawful
terminations that interim earnings should be deducted from backpay
awards to avoid giving the employee a windfall double recovery.
The court majority deferred to the board and enforced its new
rule.  Judge Gorsuch dissented, finding the board's numerous
policy justifications for the changed law were outside its
authority under the NLRA. He concluded powerfully: "In the end,
it's difficult to come away from this case without wondering if
the board's actions stem from a frustration with the current
statutory limits on its remedial powers -- a frustration that it
cannot pursue more tantalizing goals like punishing employers for
unlawful actions or maximizing employment."  He continued: "But .
. . frustration should not beget license.  In our legal order the
proper avenue for addressing any dissatisfaction with
congressional limits on agency authority lies in new legislation,
not administrative ipse dixit."

Notably, Judge Gorsuch's strong dissent in Community Health
Services is consistent with many of the objections employers have
made to the board's class action waiver ban. Critics of that ban
similarly chide the board for deviating from 80 years of precedent
by seeking to solve perceived problems that are well beyond the
board's limited jurisdiction to address.

Finally, some of Judge Gorsuch's comments on class actions in
general are relevant.  In 2005, he authored an article on
settlements in securities fraud class actions in which he observed
that "economic incentives" in "securities litigation encourage
class action lawyers to bring meritless claims and prompt
corporate defendants to pay dearly to settle such claims." That
same concern is one of the justifications for class action waivers
generally because they allow the parties to focus on the merits of
a claim rather than tangential litigation costs and risks.  For
example, in our brief on behalf of D.R. Horton Inc. in its
challenge of the NLRB's class action waiver ban, we argued:

[T]he mere possibility of certification may impose such
substantial defense costs and risks on a defendant that it is
forced to settle irrespective of the merits of the underlying
claims . . . Employers thus have a legitimate interest in agreeing
to procedures -- such as individualized arbitration -- allowing
the parties to adjudicate the employee's claim on its merits while
also avoiding substantial costs and risks unrelated to the
strength of that claim.

The above decisions and commentary offer some window into Judge
Gorsuch's thinking on questions that will be at the heart of the
Supreme Court's upcoming class action waiver cases.  If Judge
Gorsuch's views on the role of arbitration under the FAA, the
problems posed by class actions and the limits on the board's
authority continue along this trajectory, employers may have
reason to be optimistic.

* Seyfarth Shaw Attorney Analyzes Class Certification Rulings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Maatman, Jr., Esq. of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports on the statistical study of class certification
rulings throughout the Unites States in 2016.  Not unlike real
estate, location -- in terms of venue, the assigned judge, and
applicable circuit case law -- is an all-important factor in class
certification dynamics.

Introduction

Federal and state courts issued more favorable class certification
rulings for the plaintiffs' bar in 2016 than in past years.
Plaintiffs' lawyers continued to craft refined and more successful
class certification theories to counter the more stringent Rule 23
certification requirements established in
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), and Comcast
Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). In the areas of
employment discrimination, wage & hour, and ERISA class actions,
the plaintiffs' bar scored exceedingly well in securing class
certification rulings in 2016.  In sum, class actions continue to
be certified in significant numbers and certain "magnet"
jurisdictions continue to issue decisions that encourage -- or, in
effect, force -- the resolution of large numbers of claims through
class action mechanisms.

Anecdotally, surveys of corporate counsel confirm that complex
workplace litigation -- and especially class action and multi-
plaintiff lawsuits -- remains one of the chief exposures driving
corporate legal budgetary expenditures, as well as the type of
legal dispute that causes the most concern for their companies.

The prime concern in that array of risks is now indisputably wage
& hour litigation.

Overall Certification Statistics

A circuit-by-circuit analysis of the 244 class certification
decisions in all varieties of workplace class action litigation is
detailed in the following map.

Wage & Hour Certification Trends

While plaintiffs continued to achieve initial conditional
certification of wage & hour collective actions in 2016, employers
also secured significant victories in defeating conditional
certification motions and obtaining decertification of Sec 216(b)
collective actions.  The percentage of successful motions for
decertification brought by employers rose by nearly 10% in 2016.

Most significantly, for the first time in over a decade, wage &
hour lawsuit filings in federal courts decreased.

An increase in FLSA filings over the past several years, however,
caused the issuance of more FLSA certification rulings than in any
other substantive area of complex employment litigation, i.e., 224
certification rulings in 2016, as compared to the 175
certification rulings in 2015.

The analysis of these rulings shows that more cases are brought
against employers in more "plaintiff-friendly" jurisdictions such
as the judicial districts within the Second and Ninth Circuits.
This trend is shown in the following map:

The map of FLSA certification rulings is telling.

First, it substantiates that the district courts within the Ninth
Circuit and the Second Circuit are the epicenters of wage & hour
class actions and collective actions.

More cases were prosecuted and conditionally certified -- 33
certification orders in the Ninth Circuit and 29 certification
orders in the Second Circuit -- in the district courts in those
circuits than in any other areas of the country.  The district
courts in the Fifth, Eleventh, and Sixth Circuits were not far
behind, with 22, 12, and 11 certification orders respectively in
those jurisdictions.

Second, as the burdens of proof reflect under 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 216(b), plaintiffs won the overwhelming majority of "first
stage" conditional certification motions (147 of 195 rulings, or
approximately 76%); in terms of "second stage" decertification
motions, plaintiffs also prevailed in a slight majority of those
cases (16 of 29 rulings, or approximately 55% of the time).

The "first stage" conditional certification statistics for 2016
are aligned to the numbers in 2015, when plaintiffs won 75% of
"first stage" conditional certification motions.  However,
employers fared much better in 2016 on "second stage"
decertification motions. Employers won decertification at a rate
of 45%, which was up from 36% in 2015.

The following chart illustrates this trend for 2016:

Third, this reflects that there has been an on-going migration of
skilled plaintiffs' class action lawyers into the wage & hour
litigation space.  Securing initial "first stage" conditional
certification -- and foisting settlement pressure on an employer -
- can be done quickly (almost right after the case is filed), with
a minimal monetary investment in the case (e.g., no expert is
needed, unlike the situation when certification is sought in an
employment discrimination class action or ERISA class action), and
without having to conduct significant discovery (per the case law
that has developed under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b)).

As a result, to the extent litigation of class actions and
collective actions by plaintiffs' lawyers is viewed as an
investment, prosecution of wage & hour lawsuits is a relatively
low cost investment, without significant barriers to entry, and
with the prospect of immediate returns as compared to other types
of workplace class action litigation.  Finally, as success in
litigation often begets copy-cat filings, the increase in top wage
& hour settlements in 2016 to $695.5 million as compared to $463.6
million in 2015 is likely to prompt more litigation too.

Employment Discrimination & ERISA Certification Trends

At the same time, the rulings in Wal-Mart and Comcast also fueled
more critical thinking and crafting of case theories in employment
discrimination and ERISA class action filings in 2016.  The
Supreme Court's two Rule 23 decisions have had the effect of
forcing the plaintiffs' bar to "re-boot" the architecture of their
class action theories.  At least one result was the decision this
past year in Tyson Foods, in which the Supreme Court accepted
plaintiffs' arguments that, in effect, appeared to soften the
requirements previously imposed in Wal-Mart and Comcast for
maintaining and proving class claims.

Hence, it is clear that the playbook on Rule 23 strategies is
undergoing a continuous process of evolution. Filings of "smaller"
employment discrimination class actions have increased due to a
strategy whereby state or regional-type classes are asserted
rather than nationwide mega-cases that Wal-Mart discouraged.  In
essence, at least in the employment discrimination area, the
plaintiffs' litigation playbook is more akin to a strategy of "aim
small, miss small."

In turn, employment-related class certification motions outside of
the wage & hour area were a mixed bag or tantamount to a "jump
ball" in 2016, as 4 of the 8 were granted and 4 were denied.

The following map demonstrates this array of certification rulings
in Title VII and ADEA discrimination cases:

In terms of the ERISA class action litigation scene in 2016, the
focus continued to rest on precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court as
it shaped and refined the scope of potential liability and
defenses in ERISA class actions.

The Wal-Mart decision also has changed the ERISA certification
playing field by giving employers more grounds to oppose class
certification.

The decisions in 2016 show that class certification motions have
the best chance of denial in the context of ERISA welfare plans,
and ERISA defined contribution pension plans, where individualized
notions of liability and damages are prevalent.

Nonetheless, plaintiffs were more successful than defendants in
ERISA class actions, as plaintiffs won 8 of 12 certification
rulings in 2016.

A map illustrating these trends is shown below:
Overall Trends

So what conclusions overall can be drawn on class certification
trends in 2016?

In the areas of employment discrimination, wage & hour, and ERISA,
the plaintiffs' bar is converting their case filings into
certification of classes at a high rate.

Whereas class certification was a coin toss for employment
discrimination cases (4 granted and 4 denied in 2016), class
certification is relatively easier in ERISA cases (8 granted and 4
denied in 2016), but most prevalent in wage & hour litigation
(with 147 conditional certification orders granted and 48 denied,
as well as 13 decertification motions granted and 16 denied).

The following bar graph details the win/loss percentages in each
of these substantive areas:

   -- a 50% success rate for certification of employment
discrimination class actions (both Title VII and age
discrimination cases);

  -- a 66% success rate for certification of ERISA class actions;
and,

  -- a 76% success rate for conditional certification of wage &
hour collective actions.

Obviously, the most certification activity in workplace class
action litigation is in the wage & hour space.

The trend over the last three years reflects a steady success rate
of 70% to 76% for the plaintiffs' bar that is tilted toward
plaintiff-friendly "magnet" jurisdictions were the case law favors
workers and presents challenges to employers seeking to block
certification.

Yet, in 2016, employers increased their odds of decertifying wage
& hour cases to 45% as compared to 36% in 2015.

Comparatively, the trend over the past three years for
certification orders is illustrated in the following chart:

While each case is different and no two class actions or
collective actions are identical, these statistics paint the all-
too familiar picture that employers have experienced over the last
several years.  The new wrinkle to influence these factors in 2017
is the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Tyson Foods.  To the
extent it assists plaintiffs in their certification theories,
future certification decisions may well trend further upward for
workers.

Lessons For Employers From 2016

There are multiple lessons to be drawn from these trends in 2016.

First, while Wal-Mart undoubtedly heightened commonality standards
under Rule 23(a)(2) starting in 2011, and Comcast tightened the
predominance factors at least for damages under Rule 23(b) in
2013, the plaintiffs' bar has crafted theories and "work arounds"
to maintain or increase their chances of successfully securing
certification orders.  In 2016, their certification numbers were
up to the highest levels in the last three years.

Second, the defense-minded decisions in Wal-Mart and Comcast have
not taken hold in any significant respect in the context of FLSA
certification decisions for wage & hour cases.  Efforts by the
defense bar to use the commonality standards from Wal-Mart and the
predominance analysis from Comcast have not impacted the ability
of the plaintiffs' bar to secure certification orders under 29
U.S.C. Sec. 216(b).

Third, there are "cracks in the defense wall" appearing in the
case law relative to efforts by employers to create sustained
barriers to class certification.  The Supreme Court's decision in
2016 in Tyson Foods is the most prominent example of how "work
arounds" are taking place to enable plaintiffs' lawyers to achieve
class certification.

Fourth, while monetary relief in a Rule 23(b)(2) context is
severely limited, certification is the "holy grail" in class
actions, and certification of any type of class -- even a
non-monetary injunctive relief class claim -- often drives
settlement decisions.  This is especially true for employment
discrimination, ERISA, and wage & hour class actions, as
plaintiffs' lawyers can recover awards of attorneys' fees under
fee-shifting statutes in an employment litigation context. In this
respect, the plaintiffs' bar is nothing if not ingenuous, and
targeted, strategic certification theories (e.g., issue
certification on a limited discrete aspect of a case) are the new
norm in federal and state courthouses.

Fifth, during the certification stage, courts are more willing
than ever before to assess facts that overlap both certification
and merits issues, and to apply a more practical assessment of the
Rule 23(b) requirement of predominance, which focuses on the
utility and superiority of a preclusive class-wide trial of common
issues.  Courts are also more willing to apply a heightened degree
of scrutiny to expert opinions offered to establish proof of the
Rule 23 requirements.

In sum, notwithstanding these shifts in proof standards and the
contours of judicial decision-making, the likelihood of class
certification rulings favoring plaintiffs are not only "alive and
well" in the post-Wal-Mart and Comcast era, but also thriving.


* Value of Wage-and-Hour Class Action Settlements Up in 2016
------------------------------------------------------------
David McCann, writing for CFO.com, reports that the dollar volume
of settlements of class-action litigation against U.S. companies
over employee-compensation practices soared in 2016 for a second
year in a row, and 2017 is likely to bring more of the same,
according to national law firm Seyfarth Shaw.

The value of settlements in so-called "wage-and-hour" cases last
year was more than three times the 2014 level (see chart at the
bottom of this article).  By comparison, settlements for the other
three major types of workplace lawsuits -- employment
discrimination, ERISA, and government-enforcement cases -- all
went down in 2016 after reaching all-time highs in 2014 and 2015.

The dollar volume of settlements of class-action litigation
against U.S. companies over employee-compensation practices soared
in 2016 for a second year in a row, and 2017 is likely to bring
more of the same, according to national law firm Seyfarth Shaw.

The value of settlements in so-called "wage-and-hour" cases last
year was more than three times the 2014 level (see chart at the
bottom of this article). By comparison, settlements for the other
three major types of workplace lawsuits -- employment
discrimination, ERISA, and government-enforcement cases -- all
went down in 2016 after reaching all-time highs in 2014 and 2015.



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *